Skip to main content

Full text of "Foundations, America Foundations; Their Power And Influence Rene A Wormser ( 1958)"

See other formats








Copyright 1958 by 
Ren§ A. Wormser 

Library of Congress Card Number 57-8863 
First printing, 1958, by Devin-Adalr. 

Second printing by Angriff Press, 1977, 
with permission of Devin-Adair. 

Third printing by Covenant House Books, 1993, 
with permission of Angriff Press. 

Post Office Box 590 * San Pedro, CA 90733 

ISBN 0-925591 -28-9 


The most difficult assignment of my thirty years in the Con- 
gress of the United States was the chairmanship of the Special 
Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations, informally re- 
ferred to as the “Reece Committee. 1 ' This investigation required 
embarrassingly close scrutiny of the intellectual activities sup- 
ported by the great and highly respected American names of Car- 
negie, Rockefeller, and Ford. As a minority member of the Cox 
Committee, which in the previous Congress had attempted but 
virtually abandoned this project, I had sensed the power that 
would spring up in opposition to a complete investigation. 

The obstacles were obvious from the first. We knew that the in- 
fluential “liberal" press, characterized by The New York Times, 
the New York Herald Tribune, and the Washington Post-Times 
Herald, would throw its editorial power against the Committee. 
We knew that even the bulk of the conservative press could not 
be unmindful of the enormous power of these foundations. We 
knew that many prominent educators, regardless of what they felt, 
could not be unmindful of the dependency of their institutions 
upon continued largess from the foundations involved. We knew 
that the group of prominent men whose decisions would have to 
be judged extended even to intimates of the White House. 

But I felt that the work of the Cox Committee left several im- 
portant unanswered questions, of which the gravest was: to what 
extent, if any , are the funds of the large foundations aiding and 



abetting Marxist tendencies in the United States and weakening 
the love xohich every American should have for his way of life? 

So we set out to find the answers. We wanted to explore the 
problems of foundations by examining their actions, not their 
statements for the public. We felt that there are involved in the 
concepts under which foundations operate and grow in the 
United States certain dangers for the public welfare. We were not 
blind to the undoubted merits of the contributions of numerous 
tax-exempt foundations to worth-while causes. It was our in- 
tention to find the factual basis for preserving their constructive 
functions and at the same time for supplying guidance for future 
legislation and administrative action against the use of foundation 
power for political ends. The story of that adventure, of what we 
found, and of the harassments to which we were subjected, is 
included in this book by Ren£ A. Wormser, who was general 
counsel to the committee of which I was chairman and is widely 
recognized in America and Europe as outstanding in the field of 
estate planning and taxation. The book contributes essentially, 
however, the philosophical and juridical reflections of this dis- 
tinguished lawyer, based upon the material our committee dis- 
closed and upon other data which have appeared since the 
dosing of our inquiry. He discusses problems of foundation ad- 
ministration and control which are grave indeed and has ren- 
dered a great service in preparing this sober and thoughtful work. 



In his column in the New York Daily Netos of December 21, 
1954, John O’Donnell said that the Reece Committee had the 
“almost impossible task” of telling “the taxpayers that the incredi- 
ble was, in fact, the truth.” “The incredible fact,” he continued 
“was that the huge fortunes piled up by such industrial giants as 
John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and Henry Ford were to- 
day being used to destroy or discredit the free-enterprise system 
which gave them birth.” 

It is not easy to investigate foundations, not even for Congress 
to attempt it: the giant foundations are powerful and have power- 
ful friends. A special committee was created by the House of 
• Representatives of the 83rd Congress to investigate tax-exempt or- 
ganizations. It is generally referred to as the “Reece Committee” 
after its chairman, Congressman B. Carroll Reece of Tennessee. 
It was successor, in a way, to the “Cox Committee,” created by the 
previous Congress. The Reece Committee had perhaps the most 
hazardous career of any committee in the history of Congress.* 
It survived its many perils, however, to bring to the attention of 
Congress and the people grave dangers to our society. 

These dangers relate chiefly to the use of foundation funds 
for political ends; they arise out of the accumulation of substan- 
tial economic power and of cultural influence in the hands of a 

•See Appendix B for the Story of the Reece Committee. The Committee'* 
findings are quoted in Appendix A, 



class of administrators of tax-exempt funds established in per- 
petuity. An “£lite” has thus emerged, in control of gigantic finan- 
cial resources operating outside of our democratic processes, 
which is willing and able to shape the future of this nation and 
of mankind in the image of its own value concepts. An unparal- 
leled amount of power is concentrated increasingly in the hands 
of an interlocking and self-perpetuating group. Unlike the power 
of corporate management, it is unchecked by stockholders; un- 
like the power of government, it is unchecked by the people; un- 
like the power of churches, it is unchecked by any firmly es- 
tablished canons of value. 

This book grew out of my conviction that some of the materials 
examined by the Reece Committee, for which I acted as general 
counsel, deserve broader circulation. My own reflections, based 
upon the committee’s work and upon additional material and con- 
tinued studies, might also contribute to a sharpening of the is- 
sues, which deserve wide public consideration. 

The “foundations” which the Committee investigated did not 
all carry that label, In addition to primary sources of foundation 
grants, such as The Ford Foundation, The Rockefeller Founda- 
tion, and The Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Committee 
examined secondary distributors of grant moneys, especially or- 
ganizations such as The Social Science Research Council, The 
Institute of Pacific Relations, and The American Council on 
Education, which are supported by the major foundations and 
used in selecting ultimate recipients. A dictionary definition of 
the term “foundation” might run: “an endowed institution, cor- 
poration or charity.” This would include colleges, hospitals, 
churches, and other institutions of a character far different from 
that of the foundations with which we are dealing. These are es- 
sentially recipients of money for their own use and not in the 
business of handing out grants to others, They are, in rela- 
tion to the foundations, mentioned above what the consumer is 
in relation to his supplier. 

Limited to the types of organization we have in mind, the total 
number now existing in the United States can be estimated at 


over 7,000. Most were created under state corporation laws; 
some as trusts; a very small number by Federal charter. Accurate 
statistics are impossible to obtain, but the aggregate capital o£ 
these foundations seems to be about nine billion dollars, their in- 
come running into hundreds of millions per year. Total founda- 
tion wealth is generally underestimated. Some foundations 
(among them The Duke Foundation, The Ford Foundation, 
The Ford Motor Company Fund, the Guggenheim foundation 
and The Rockefeller Brothers Fund) report their assets on a 
book-value basis — market value usually being much higher. In the 
case of The Ford Foundation, the actual value of its assets turned 
out to have been six times their book value. Moreover, many foun- 
dations are vehicles for continued donations, whether by gift or 
legacy — they are in a state of growth. Indeed, some have only 
nominal capital today but will contain vast sums on the deaths of 
those who created them. 

While there is much overlapping, foundations might be di- 
vided into three classes: those which are purely granting founda- 
tions; those which use their money for their own research and 
operations (operating foundations); and those which might be 
called “intermediaries," “clearing houses/' or “retailers" for other 
foundations. Some of the intermediaries have no endowment and 
thus, strictly speaking, may not be “foundations"; however, they 
came within the committee's scope as “tax-exempt organizations," 
because of the practice of major foundations of delegating to 
them the selection of beneficiaries. 

Other classifications are possible, such as those foundations 
which have special purposes and those which are concerned with 
general research. In his recent book, Philanthropic Foundations 
Mr. F. Emerson Andrews, an executive of The Russell Sage Foun- 
dation, says: “Although the foundations that can now be clas- 
sified as 'general research* probably do not exceed 150 in number, 
they control more than half the assets of all foundations and are 
the ones most in the public eye. To a large degree they are the 
leaders and standard setters for the foundation movement." 

• Russell Sage Foundation, 1956. 


The birth rate of foundations is rapidly accelerating. The Com- 
missioner of Internal Revenue so testified, as would any expert 
in estate and business planning. The chief motivation in the crea- 
tion of foundations has long ceased to be pure philanthropy — it is 
now predominantly tax avoidance or minimization.* The chari- 
table tax exemptions were intended to advance the public welfare 
by offering exemption for philanthropic purposes. The increas- 
ing tax burden on income and estates has greatly accelerated a 
trend toward creation of foundations as instruments for the re- 
tention of control over capital assets that would otherwise be lost. 
The Internal Revenue Service, according to a press report, f says 
it sometimes receives up to 10,000 applications a month for tax- 
free statusl 

The creation of a new foundation very often serves the purpose 
of contributing to a favorable public opinion for the person or 
corporation that endows it. Among public-relations consultants the 
practice of publicly establishing the virtue of a previously de- 
spised person or institution by forming a tax-exempt foundation 
and beating the drum for it is quite common. Some of our largest 
foundations, established before the introduction of Federal in- 
come and estate taxes, were created largely to glamorize a name 
not previously identified as conspicuously charitable. 

Mr. Andrews, in his Philanthropic Foundations , speaks of the 
mushroom growth of foundations in the past decade (1945-1956). 
He attributes truly charitable motivation to many donors, and 
mixed motives to others, but admits that many foundations are 
created for primarily selfish reasons and sometimes for fraudulent 
purposes. He sees it as obvious enough that tax reasons should 
stimulate the creation of foundations, pointing out that, to the very 
' rich, whose income is taxed at the highest brackets, a donation to 
a charitable purpose would cost in some instances only nine cents 
per dollar. If gifts are made in the form of appreciated assets in- 
stead of money (stocks, land, or other property that has gained in 

•See The Charitable Trust (The Foundation) As an Instrument of Estate 
Planning. Rend A. Wormser. 18 Ohio St. L. J. 5419 (1957). 
fScrlpps* Howard. March 13. 1957, from Washington. 


value since its acquisition), the donor in the highest tax brackets 
will have more money left after the donation than if he himself 
had liquidated the asset, paid a 25% capital-gains tax, and given 
nothing awayl 

Perhaps the best example of the use of foundations in estate and 
business planning is offered by the largest, The Ford Foundation, 
This foundation received about 90 percent of the stock of the 
Ford Motor Company, all nonvoting stock. Had not the Ford fam- 
ily created this foundation, it would have had to dispose of a 
large part of its ownership in the Ford Company to the public, 
for it is hardly possible that the family had enough liquid capital 
to pay the hundreds of millions of estate taxes which would have 
been due upon the deaths of two proprietors, Henry Ford and his 
son Edsel. It might have been difficult to make such a public sale 
without endangering their control of the company. 

The foundation, however, offered a way out. The family, by 
transferring about 90 per cent of its Ford holdings to a founda- 
tion, escaped estate taxes on approximately 90 percent of its for- 
tune. At the same time, it retained voting control of the company 
and had the satisfaction of knowing that even the nonvoting stock 
was in friendly hands. When part of the foundation’s holdings of 
Ford stock was sold in 1956, after being converted into voting 
stock, the distribution was carefully controlled to make sure that 
no large blocks would be held by any one investor. One reason 
behind this might have been the conviction that the more Ford 
stockholders there were, the more Ford customers and enthusiasts 
there would be. Another motivation might have been the simple 
one of not wishing any minority stockholder to acquire enough 
stock to make him too interested in challenging the management. 

In this manner, and by other uses of foundations, control of an 
enterprise is often retained by a family, while a huge part of a 
decedent's fortune is removed from death taxes. A direct dona- 
tion to an existing philanthropic institution, like a college or a 
church, would save the same tax, but the creation of a foundation 
enables the family itself to have the pleasure, power, and satis- 
faction of managing the wealth donated to “charity." 


There have been “business” abuses of the tax law, of course. 
The Reece Committee report gave one rather shocking example 
of a type of tax avoidance. This was the case of The Reid Founda- 
tion, which holds millions of dollars in notes of the publishing 
company which owns and publishes the New York Herald Trib- 
une* These notes were transferred to the Reid Foundation partly 
by direct donation of the late Ogden M. Reid and partly by 
his will, the estate thus saving a large sum in death taxes. As the 
committee report said: 

It is the conclusion of this Committee that what was in- 
tended was a business arrangement. We conclude that the 
Foundation was not to be engaged solely in charitable work. 
... It was to exercise charity in behalf of the New York 
Herald Tribune . It was to subordinate whatever philanthro- 
pic work had been planned to the welfare of that newspaper 
and the interest of the Reid family in it. It was a business 
deal. There was no free gift of the notes. They were trans- 
ferred pursuant to a contract under which the Foundation 
agreed to assist the publishing company in its financial prob- 
lem and, by inference, but clear inference, to make this 
objective superior to its presumed charitable function.* 

It was the committee’s opinion that no charitable exemption 
should have been allowed The Reid Foundation. 

The extent to which foundations are today being used — in a 
manner generally similar to that of The Ford Foundation — to 
solve the problem of paying death taxes when a major part of the 
assets of the estate consist of stock in a closely held corporation, 
largely prompted me to include this comment in an address at the 
University of Chicago in 1952: 

It seems to me that the ingenious legal creatures developed 
by tax experts to solve the unusual social, economic, and 
legal problems of the past several generations will become 

• Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations 
(Reece Committee), p. 9. Reference to Report throughout this book will con- 
cern the report of this committee, 


Frankensteins, though perhaps benevolent ones. It is possi- 
ble that, in fifty or a hundred years, a great part of American 
industry will be controlled by pension and profit-sharing 
trusts and foundations and a large part of the balance by 
insurance companies and labor unions. What eventual re- 
percussions may come from such a development, one can 
only guess. It may be that we will in this manner reach some 
form of society similar to socialism, without consciously in- 
tending it. Or it may be, to protect ourselves against the 
strictures which such concentrations of power can effect, that 
we might have to enact legislation analogous to the Statutes 
of Mortmain which, centuries ago, were deemed necessary in 
order to prevent all England’s wealth from passing into the 
hands of the church. 

The overwhelming majority of foundations have had careers 
quite beyond any criticism, and some of those which have been 
most criticized have notable accomplishments to their credit. The 
work of both the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations in some 
fields of medicine, public health, and science, for example, de- 
serves the thanks of the American people. Many unquestionably 
commendable accomplishments should not, however, immunize a 
foundation from criticism for mistakes involving what may be 
termed a breach of trust. 

It is in the fields of education, international affairs and what are 
called the “social sciences'* that the greatest damage can be 
done to our society. For this reason the Reece Committee confined 
its inquiry almost entirely to these areas. 

Foundations achieve their tax-exempt status, even their initial 
license to exist, because they are dedicated, in one way or another, 
to the public welfare. They must be so dedicated. The state laws 
which govern the creation of foundations give considerable lati- 
tude. The donor is permitted to satisfy his idiosyncrasies, if he 
cares to, by designating purposes limited to certain classes of 
beneficiaries and certain classes of benefactions, as long as the 
whole operation is truly philanthropic. The Federal tax law, in 


turn, is equally generous in permitting even idiosyncratic phi- 
lanthropies to qualify for tax exemption. Underlying both the 
State and Federal laws applying to foundations, however, is the 
concept of public dedication — a fund administered by fiduciaries 
(whether called “trustees’' or directors”) for public benefit. 

The tax relief which foundations and their donors enjoy causes 
the public to pay more taxes than would be the case if the exemp- 
tions were not granted. Consequently, and because foundations 
are public trusts,* the public has the right to expect those who op- 
erate them to exercise the highest degree of fiduciary responsi- 

A study of the place of foundations in our society calls for an 
initial clarification of the method applied in such an inquiry. Ob- 
viously the great variety of foundation goals and activities makes 
it impossible to apply the sampling procedures so fashionable 
among contemporary social scientists. One cannot arrive at a 
quantitatively correct description of all foundations from exami- 
nation of a selected number. Consequently* the investigator must 
be satisfied with an opportunity to arrive at conclusions regarding 
possible merits and demerits of foundation practices by examina- 
tion of a reasonably large number of cases. The result will be a 
better understanding of the principles of human behavior in- 
volved in operating tax-exempt activities and a more practical 
approach to the formulation and application of the law protecting 
the public interest. 

Limited as it was by time and money, the Reece Committee 
could attempt only a partial investigation of some of the less de- 
sirable features of foundation management in the United States. 
Its main contribution was to expose instances in which the promo- 
tion of political ends, favored perhaps by foundation managers, 
had been disguised as charitable or educational activity. Political 
activity of this kind endangers the future of the foundation as an 

• Objection is sometimes made to calling a foundation a 'public trust.’ How- 
ever, while it is privately administered, it is public in the sense that it must 
be dedicated to the public— the public is its beneficiary. 


The often stormy hearings of the Reece Committee stimulated 
a widespread reexamination of the goals and methods of the 
major foundations. In the resulting public discussion, even some 
of the most stalwart supporters of the criticized foundations were 
obliged to admit to certain deficiencies; indeed, some major 
changes in personnel and in operating policies ensued. 

The following pages are offered as a contribution towards a 
better understanding of the public issues arising out of the exist- 
ence of powerful tax-exempt institutions. They point to some of the 
abuses of the past to illustrate the dangers inherent in the absence 
of effective measures for preventing political activity by founda- 

Greenwich , Conn . 



PREFACE by drazilla carroll reece v 








WHAT IS “religious”? 37 




























KIND” 110 



















































9 FROM HERE ON? 288 

AS IT IS 2 88 








prelude: the creation of the cox committee 328 






























INDEX 4<> * 





When the 82nd Congress appointed a select committee to in- 
vestigate foundations, this committee was directed to conduct a 
full and complete investigation and study of educational and phil- 
anthropic foundations and other comparable organizations which 
are exempt from Federal income taxation. The committee, later 
known as the “Cox Committee,” was instructed "to determine 
which such foundations and organizations are using their re- 
sources for purposes other than the purposes for which they were 
established and especially to determine which such foundations 
and organizations are using their resources for un-American and 
subversive activities or for purposes not in the interest or tradi- 
tion of the United States.” 

Similarly, the Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt 
Foundations and Comparable Organizations appointed by the 
83rd Congress, “the Reece Committee," was instructed to make 
a study of the use of such resources for "un-American and 
subversive activities; for political purposes; propaganda, or at- 
tempts to influence legislation.” Consequently, both House com- 
mittees in their observations concentrated largely on alleged sub- 
versive aspects of foundation activities. 

Like all studies by Congressional committees, the investigations 
took place in an atmosphere of some political passion. The clash 
of personalities, outside efforts to prevent a full airing of the prob- 



lems of foundations, the short time available for research and 
hearings, and the absence of sufficient funds substantially im- 
paired committee work. Yet these Congressional committees have 
accomplished much. They have pointed up the importance of tax- 
exempt organizations in our social structure. They have disclosed 
serious weaknesses and dangers. They have exposed a great num- 
ber of unexplored problems arising out of foundation activity. But 
they have not finished the study which the social importance of 
foundations requires. 

The American foundation is a social invention, created to con- 
tribute to the improvement of the public welfare. Like any in- 
vention, it creates new situations, changing with the tides of our 
social life. The impact of foundation programs and operations in 
many of the focal areas of our civilization requires constant re- 
evaluation. Congressional committees can contribute very sub- 
stantially to such appraisal. 

The significance of tax-exempt private organizations transcends 
the importance of occasional or frequent errors of judgment com- 
mitted by foundation trustees or their managers. These institu- 
tions may exert political influence, support subversion, or exhibit 
tendencies conflicting with our national traditions. The emergence 
of richly endowed juridical persons with self-perpetuating boards 
of directors, free from any formal responsibility for their policies 
and actions and growing in number and wealth, deserves the full- 
est attention of all who are concerned for the future of our Re- 

There are substantial dissimilarities between the purposes, char- 
acteristics, and operators of the various organizations. A stereo- 
type picture of what “the foundations” have contributed or are 
guilty of, will always do injustice to some. Congressional reports, 
by necessity, highlight certain features of a limited number of 
tax-exempt foundations and are likely to invite generalizations 
from a few explored data. But a “typical foundation” is as non- 
existent as an “average man” or an “average corporation” in real 
life. Furthermore, as it is with human beings and their societies, 
the individual foundation itself undergoes change; what may be 


true of specific intentions and performance today may not be true 
any longer tomorrow. 

The emphasis of the Reece Committee on the need for further 
study came from the recognition of the existence of many more 
problems than the ones it touched upon. But the far-from-com- 
pleted investigation did disclose sufficient instances of question- 
able practices to permit an understanding of some of the general 
precautions that ought to be applied to foundation management. 
The Committee sought out guiding principles for future founda- 
tion behavior rather than grounds for punishing past errors. If, 
therefore, this study will use some of the less flattering data on 
tax-exempt operations uncovered by the Congressional investiga- 
tion, the purpose is not to create a stereotyped prejudice against 
foundations in general. It is rather to record the possible dangers 
to the public welfare and so, in the end, to serve the interest of 
foundations in their continued service to the public better than 
complacent silence would do. 


The problems oE foundations are not new. They have been aired 
by Congressional inquiry before. The manner of their exploration 
has always reflected the concern of the day with specific dangers 
to the public welfare. The Commission on Industrial Relations ex- 
amined foundations more than forty years ago under a Congres- 
sional Act of August 23, 1912. Its main purpose was to study 
labor conditions and the treatment of workers by major industrial 
firms. Starting with a study of labor exploitation, it went on to in- 
vestigate concentrations of economic power, interlocking directo- 
rates, and the role of the then relatively new large charitable foun- 
dations (especially of Carnegie and Rockefeller) as instruments 
of power concentration. The fears of foundation power prevalent 
in that generation are best expressed by the statement to the Com- 
mission made by a prominent lawyer and student of social prob- 
lems who later became a justice of the Supreme Court. 

Louis D. Brandeis testified on January 23, 1915, as to why he 
was gravely concerned with the growth of concentrated economic 


power. He spoke of corporate power first; then, of what appeared 
to him a similar problem in relation to the large foundations. He 

But when a great financial power has developed, when there 
exist these powerful organizations, which can successfully 
summon forces from all parts of the country, which can af- 
ford to use tremendous amounts of money in any conflict 
to carry out what they deem to be their business principle, 
and can also afford to suffer losses — you have necessarily 
a condition of inequality between the two contending 
forces.*** The result in the cases of these large corpora- 
tions, may be to develop a benevolent absolutism, but it is 
an absolutism all the same; and it is that which makes the 
great corporation so dangerous. There develops within the 
State a state so powerful that the ordinary social and in- 
dustrial forces existing are insufficient to cope with it.* 

Brandeis said that foundations express a desire, a zealous purpose, 
to aid humanity. But he also stated that he felt a “grave appre- 
hension at times as to what might ultimately be the effect of these 
foundations when the control shall have passed out of the hands 
of those who at present are administering them to those who may 
not be governed by the excellent intent of the creators .' 1 He re- 
iterated his fear of abuse of power and termed the whole system 
“inconsistent with our democratic aspirations." 

At these hearings, under the chairmanship of Senator Frank P. 
Walsh,f a great number of other prominent witnesses appeared 
and testified on their ideas and observations regarding founda- 

Samuel Untermyer, counsel to the U. S. Steel Corporation and 
himself a prominent philanthropist, stated his belief in the capital- 
ist system. He attributed the propaganda success of socialism, 
communism, and syndicalism to the blunders of capitalism. He 
saw a remedy in the enlightened self-interest of capitalists that 

• Walsh Commission Hearings , p. 7659. 
f 64th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Document 415, vol. VII. 


would lead to social reforms. Criticizing the Rockefeller, Sage, 
and Carnegie foundations, he said: 

The Rockefeller Foundation sought a Federal charter, but 
was not satisfied with the terms it was offered by Congress. 
It wanted our fundamental laws against perpetuities ignored 
and repealed so far as concerned its powers and limitations. 
It promptly secured from the New York State legislature 
what Congress refused to grant; the Sage and Carnegie 
foundations did the same. If New York had not given them 
what they wanted they would have passed along from State 
to State until they found a corporate habitation on their 
own terms, without in the least interfering with their oper- 
ating wherever they chose. This ought not to be possible. 

Mr. Untermyer did not share the fear and distrust of founda- 
tions expressed by others. He believed in the unselfish public 
spirit of their founders and saw them doing “incalculable public 
good and no harm.” He advocated, however, that they should: 

(1) be organized under a uniform Federal law instead of un- 
der special State charters; 

(2) not be given perpetual charters, because of the possibility 
that entirely different social structures and conceptions of educa- 
tion in 50 years might make these institutions appear most re- 

(3) be limited in their size; 

(4) not be permitted to accumulate income. 

He also advocated (5) that the government should be repre- 
sented when the time comes for replacing the present trustees. 

Dr. John Haynes Holmes, an eminent Protestant minister, testi- 
fied to his concern with the power of the self-perpetuating foun- 
dation boards: 

We have here in the midst of a society supposed to be 
democratic that which is essentially an autocratic system of 
administration, of an institution which represents power, 
which is, of course, simply stupendous, and that relationship 


therefor, of the most serious character to mankind, the auto- 
cratic administration on one hand and the democratic ad- 
ministration [of government] upon the other.* 

He contended that a democratic society did not need the serv- 
ices of outside agencies “to study a community from its own 
standpoint and to apply remedies from funds at its disposal." He 
feared greatly the “paralysis of the possibilities of democracy" 
when powerful foundations take over. Dr. Holmes, as it appears, 
was an ardent advocate of cooperative socialism, and represented 
what today would be called “liberalism." He recommended ap- 
pointment of foundation trustees by the government. He was so 
much opposed to the large foundations that he would “rather see 
democracy die of its own corruption than be favored by the au- 
tocratic benefaction or service of any one particular individual." 

John D. Rockefeller, Jr., testified that as a corporate director 
he had represented foundation investments as well as his family 
interests on the boards of directors of several corporations. He 
had given considerable study to the question of the relation of 
private benevolence to social and economic conditions/}- Testify- 
ing for several days, beginning on June 25, 1915, he answered 
the question whether large foundations constituted a possible 
menace either to the general cause of education or to the industrial 
welfare of the people. He said; “These foundations, as is true of 
all modern corporations, are subject to the reserved power of 
legislative bodies which created them — to modify or repeal their 
charters whenever the public interests require." J 

Asked whether he saw any dangers in interlocking directorates 
of foundations, he replied, “I should think on the other hand there 
might be a great strength in that " and generally spoke in favor of 
multiple services of the same persons as directors of several foun- 
dations^ In essence, he recognized the public’s right to know and 
through legislation to control foundation activities. 

#p - 79 * 7 - 
fP. 7849. 

t p - 7854- 
§ p - 7859- 


He advocated voluntary public reports of federally chartered 
foundations “on fiscal matters’' but not introduction of a law re- 
quiring such reports; he wanted to leave the contents of such re- 
ports to the judgment of the directors and to their understanding 
of the public interest. He did not think that any method of public 
inspection was desirable or necessary.* 

Asked about the power of foundations to influence independent 
thought and action in the investigation of social conditions, Mr. 
Rockefeller said there should be no public restrictions. He con- 
tended that proper selection of directors would sufficiently protect 
the public interest and that the financial power of large founda- 
tions would be felt only in the realm of investment. He advo- 
cated academic freedom and complete independence in the use of 
grants by recipient educational institutions of higher learning. 
Chairman Walsh was concerned lest the granting of funds for 
schools might result in "persons being educated taking the view- 
point, consciously or unconsciously, of the man that gave the 
money or the foundation that gave the money." f 

Mr. Rockefeller, with regard to higher education, answered; 
“There is a possible danger, if the giver retains any kind of con- 
trol; I think it unwise." Regarding other forms of education, how- 
ever, he considered continued help in developing the middle 
school system as desirable and as involving much more remote 

In 1915, when these opinions were expressed, obviously nobody 
expected the emergence of intermediary organizations serving 
foundations in the distribution of grants and their resulting power 
in the academic world. “Progressive education," soon to be fa- 
vored by substantial support, was in its infancy; what has been 
called the patronage network of Teachers College of Columbia 
University had not yet conquered the organizations of the teach- 
ers with the aid of tax-exempt donations. 

Approving the principle of public control and, implicitly, future 

• p. 7860. 
tP. 7866. 


Congressional study of foundations, Mr. Rockefeller said that it 
was never contemplated that his father or his associates 

could continue to have their influence felt; but at any time 
in any generation, when the board having the charge of 
such a foundation is not, in the judgment of the public, a 
proper board, the legislation can introduce an amendment, 
limiting, qualifying or modifying the method of electing 
directors and adding at that time any restriction which it 
may think desirable. 

It was Mr. Rockefeller's thought to “leave each generation to put 
up such barriers and safeguards as it may think necessary at 
that time.’* # 

In its final report, Mr. Basil M. Manly, the director of research 
of the Commission on Industrial Relations, dealt at length with 
foundation problems. Commissioners Weinstock, Ballard, and 
Ashton, while dissenting and calling the report partisan and un- 
fair regarding certain labor issues, concurred in its conclusions 
regarding the foundations. 

Concerned with the “concentration of wealth and influence,” 
the report concluded from the evidence examined: that a small 
number of wealthy and powerful financiers held in their hands 
the final control of American industry; that control through actual 
stock ownership, in spite of the large number of stockholders, 
rested with a very small number of persons; and that in each 
great basic industry a single large corporation dominated the 

In these respects the Commission set the pattern for future in- 
vestigations of Big Business, among them the studies of the Tem- 
porary National Economic Committee (TNEC) and many suc- 
cessors. Its observations have been adopted and repeated by many 
succeeding reformers, including the theorists of the New Deal, 
though the changes of our economic power structure and Iegisla- 

• P. 7876. 


live reforms have substantially altered the conditions of business 
since 1915. 

Many of the conclusions of the foundation critics of 1915 have 
lost their cogency because of evolutions in the social structure. 
Foundations, too, have changed. We may no longer fear them as 
instruments of capitalism. Today many fear them as promoters of 
big government. Yet, under totally different economic and social 
conditions, the findings of 1915 are still significant. They point 
to essential peculiarities of private endowments manifest in any 
social climate, irrespective of the current fashions of contemporary 
social criticism or of current political trends. 

The report of Mr. Manly, for the majority of the Commission, 
saw “the domination by the men in whose hands the final control 
of a large part of American industry rests *** rapidly extended to 
control the education and 'social service' of the Nation." Refer- 
ring especially to Rockefeller’s and Carnegie’s foundations, it said: 

The control is being extended largely through the creation 
of enormous privately managed funds for indefinite pur- 
poses, hereinafter designated “foundations, 0 by the endow- 
ment of colleges and universities, by the creation of funds 
for pensioning teachers, by contributions to private charities, 
as well as through controlling or influencing the public 
press.*** The funds of these foundations are exempt from 
taxation, yet during the life of their founders are subject 
to their dictation for any purpose other than commercial 
profit. In the case of the Rockefeller group of foundations, 
the absolute control of the funds and of the activities of 
the institutions now and in perpetuity rests with Mr. Rocke- 
feller, his son, and whomsoever they may appoint as their 
successors. The control of these funds has been widely pub- 
lished as being in the hands of eminent educators and 
publicly spirited citizens. In the case of the Rockefeller 
foundations, however,*** the majority of the trustees of the 
funds are salaried employees of Mr. Rockefeller or the 


foundations, who are subject to personal dictation and may 
be removed at any moment, 

The report expresses concern that the policies of these founda- 
tions “must be inevitably colored, if not controlled, to conform to 
the policies** of the corporations in whose securities their endow- 
ment was invested. On the reasoning that these funds were the 
result of wealth created by exploiting either American workers or 
American consumers, it was concluded that '‘the funds, therefore, 
by every right, belong to the American people.’* Concern was ex- 
pressed about the “practically unlimited powers of these foun- 

In discussing The Rockefeller Foundation, President Schurman 
of Cornell, himself a trustee of The Carnegie Foundation, said 
that one of these tax-exempt organizations was free to participate 
in practically any activity concerning the life and work of the na- 
tion, with the exception of activities for profit. Among the per- 
mitted foundation activities he listed: defense of the Republic in 
time of war; economic and political reforms which the trustees 
deem essential to the vitality and efficiency of the Republic in 
time of peace; championship for free trade or protectionism; ad- 
vocacy of socialism or individualism; underwriting the respective 
programs of the Republican or the Democratic parties; introduc- 
tion of Buddhism in the United States. 

The absence of legally enforceable public control was seen in 
the report as an important deficiency because “past experience 
indicates ### that the public can be aroused only when the abuses 
have become so great as to constitute a scandal.** 

After listing examples of the alleged use of the Rockefeller 
foundations as instruments for advancement of the Rockefeller 
business interests, the report reviews the extent of the possible in- 
fluence of these foundations and private endowments on institu- 
tions for education and public service. Evidence in the possession 
of the Commission supported the following complaints: 

1. That the Bureau of Municipal Research of New York adopted 


a definite line of policy to meet the conditions imposed by Mr. 
Rockefeller in connection with proposed contributions; 

2. That several colleges and universities abandoned their sec- 
tarian affiliations and charter clauses relating to religion in order 
to secure endowments from the Carnegie Corporation. 

This led the report to comment: "It would seem conclusive that 
if an institution will willingly abandon its religious affiliations 
through influence of these foundations, it will even more easily 
conform to their will any other part of its organization or teach- 
ing" * 

The report concluded; 

As regards the '‘foundations” created for unlimited general 
purposes and endowed with enormous resources, their ulti- 
mate possibilities arc so grave a menace, not only as regards 
their own activities and influence but also the benumbing 
effect which they have on private citizens and public bodies, 
that if they could be clearly differentiated from other forms 
of voluntary altruistic effort, it would be desirable to recom- 
mend their abolition. 

It was therefore recommended that Congress enact legislation 
limiting the amount of funds and the exercise of power by fund 
managers. Provisions against accumulation of unexpended income 
and against expenditure in any year of more than 10 percent of 
capital were demanded, together with rigid inspection of finances 
(investment and expenditure) and complete publicity through 
open reports to the Government. In addition, the report proposed 
the creation of an investigatory body for the continued study of 
activities of foundations and of their affiliates. Finally, the rec- 
ommendations called for increased Government activity in edu- 
cation and the social services to balance the power of foundations. 

Commissioners John R, Commons and Florence J. Harriman, 
in their separate report, requested a further investigation of foun- 
dations before new legislation was adopted, They recommended 
* P. 12 3. Emphasis supplied. 


a study of endowed charities, religious organizations, universities, 
and colleges, and concluded: "It would be a misfortune if private 
endowments, unless plainly shown to have committed abuses, 
should be prohibited." There should be, however, “no alliance 
between these private foundations or endowments and the Gov- 
ernment. The State or Government should neither subsidize them 
nor be subsidized by them, nor cooperate with them. Such co- 
operation has often led to public scandal. Instead of calling upon 
private foundations for help, the Government should treat them 
as competitors. No effort on the part of Government officials to 
secure financial assistance from them should be allowed.” * 


Congressional investigations have, on occasion, given sharp at- 
tention to improper business uses of foundations. In 1948) f° r ex- 
ample, a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Interstate 
and Foreign Commerce (80th Congress, 2nd Session) investi- 
gated the operations of the Textron Corporation, which had used 
several tax-exempt foundations in complex business manipula- 
tions. Essentially, the Textron idea was to provide tax-free shelter 
for business interests, but in organizations which could remain 
under control. The investigation opened the eyes of many to the 
extent to which foundations could be and had been used in tax 
evasion and tax avoidance. 

It disturbed this Congressional Committee that no agency of 
government had any information of consequence on the subject, 
nor any data regarding the resultant unfair competitive advan- 
tages enjoyed by foundations operating in business fields. The 
Committee expressed concern over the number of “family” foun- 
dations, and quoted Fortune magazine, which had described the 
practices of these organizations as “excessively secretive.” These 
organizations were apparently considered by the families which 
controlled them to be their own private affair. The Committee 
castigated this secretiveness as unjustified and indefensible, as 
such foundations received their preferred tax treatment from so- 

* P.387. 


ciety and hence owed a definite obligation to satisfy their public 

The Senate Committee endorsed two recommendations which 
had been offered by The Russell Sage Foundation: that compulsory 
reporting of financial and other operational activities of founda- 
tions be required; and that tax exemption be restricted to organi- 
zations with an active program of public welfare. 

The Textron disclosures, and studies of other abuses of the tax 
laws through the use of charitable foundations, led to a strength- 
ening of the Internal Revenue Code. It is no longer as easy as it 
was to use foundations for business manipulations intended to 
evade or avoid the imposition of taxes. It is not the purpose of 
this study, however, to discuss the business or tax-avoidance use 
of foundations in detail. The Internal Revenue Service seems alert 
to the problem involved and is likely to propose successive, cor- 
rective legislative measures whenever new business abuses of the 
tax-exemption privilege appear. My concern is with the cultural 
and intellectual aspects of foundation activity. It is in the field of 
ideas that foundations exert the greatest influence on our lives 
and on the future of our country. 

This is a field in which private inquiry should be encouraged. 
Congress is limited in its authority and in its approach. Almost all 
foundations are created under state law, and their rights and 
privileges are, for the most part, determined by state law. The 
leverage of the Congress, in attempting to hold them to proper 
activity, rests almost solely in the tax laws. The Federal Govern- 
ment has no power to regulate foundations in a direct way. It can 
only withhold the privilege of exemption from Federal taxes if 
they do not meet certain criteria of conduct delineated by the tax 

Under these and associated handicaps, a Congressional inquiry 
cannot hope to do the thorough study which the subject requires. 
The Cox and Reece Committees did touch on some of the major 
cultural and intellectual aspects of foundation operation, but in 
this area private inquiry could promise wider and even more 
penetrating study. 


Congressional investigation of foundation activity should con- 
tinue; the subject is too grave to suffer Congressional neglect. On 
the other hand, the searching minds of students who are uncon- 
cerned with political consequences could contribute much to an 
understanding of the impact of foundations on public affairs and 
the consequent hazards. 


Many authors have found a challenging object of study in the so- 
cial implications of charitable activity by juridical persons. Char- 
ity is a virtue attributed to physical persons. The great religions 
since time immemorial have identified it with personal salvation. 
As a concern of lay institutions organized to dispense benefaction 
to the poor and deserving, it is of a more recent nature. Origi- 
nating with religious bodies, organized charity has been used as 
an instrument of power from time to time over the centuries by 
its administrators. Is the potential of power of a great and wealthy 
charitable organization any the less a danger because it has no 
religious affiliation? Humanity has found that even a religious 
identity has not always kept powerful charitable organizations 
from conflicting with the public interest. 

This conflict frequently required action by the sovereign against 
a power position established under the guise of religious charity. 
Usually, the curbing of privileged and tax-exempt charitable or- 
ganizations took place because of their economic power. But there 
are also instances of intercession by the government for the de- 
clared reason that such bodies, established for charity, frequently 
exercised thought control. Indeed, there have been few instances 
in which both these motives have not been present simultaneously 
in varying proportions. 

In 767, the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Kopronymos, after 
first attempting to tax the holdings of the numerous monasteries 
which had become too powerful, confiscated their properties, 
which had been donated by generations of Christians for chari- 
table purposes and pious causes. He started a pattern of secular- 


ization which was often repeated by popes, kings, and revolution- 
ary governments. 

On May 6, 1312, Pope Clement V dissolved the very powerful 
order of the Knights Templar. The Templars had become a sym- 
bol of charity and culture; they had also grown enormously 
wealthy and had become a very strong influence in the western 
world. By the 12th century they had come to own 9,000 manors 
and had become rich to obvious excess. Their contributions to 
the security and civilization of Europe, their performance during 
the Crusades were soon forgotten. Acting in concert with the 
princes, the Pope suppressed the order; it had antagonized the 
secular states by its enormous aggregation of tax-exempt wealth, 
and the Church by some of its heretical beliefs and practices. 
Like some of our modern foundations, it had gone into politics. 
A later Pope, referring to this precedent in dissolving the Jesuit 
order, described the consequences of excessive wealth and in- 
fluence as general disrepute (ob universalem diffamationem sup - 
pressit et totaliter extinxit). 

The Roots of the Reformation were not in dogma alone. It gave 
the princes an opportunity to secularize the property of the 
Church. At the time of the reign of Henry VIII in England, the 
Church held two thirds of the votes in the House of Lords; 
owned one third of the land, and the best of it; and possessed an 
income two and one half times that of the Crown. The Spanish 
Crown, facing an increasing shrinkage of taxable land in the 
American colonies, forbade transfers of real property to religious 
institutions. Such institutions already owned about half the real 
estate in Mexico. Several Catholic powers, sometimes with the 
very approval of the Church, confiscated property accumulated 
from charitable donations and legacies in the hands of religious 
orders and societies. 

It was in 1773 that Pope Clement XIV dissolved the Jesuit or- 
der, which had already been expelled from Spain (in 1767), 
France (1764), and Portugal (1759). This order had contributed 
very substantially to the preservation of the Roman Catholic 


Church during the Reformation. Its charitable activities were im- 
measurable. In education, it had created methods of teaching and 
institutions of learning unexcelled at the time and exemplary even 
today. But its wealth and influence had aroused bitter and power- 
ful resentment. This resentment lay partly in the political activity 
of some of the guiding managers of the Order. As a friendly his- 
torian put it: “Their disobedience to the rule — to abstain from 
politics — besmirched the name of the society and destroyed the 
good work of the other Jesuits, who were faithfully carrying out 
their own proper duties.’* A less friendly historian commented: 
“Their perpetual meddling in politics and even in speculation and 
finance, stank in the nostrils of every government in Europe; 
while their high-handedness and corrupt greed in the matters of 
ecclesiastical privileges and patronage alienated the clergy.” 

Islamic nations had their share of the problem of vast accumu- 
lations of wealth in religious organizations. Such accumulations, 
against a background of increasing population and decreasing 
free arable lands, made eventual confiscation inevitable; the in- 
creasing loss of revenue through the growth of the tax-exempt 
rolls made the problem more acute. The pious sultans of the Ot- 
toman Empire contributed to the problem by donating land con- 
sistently to religious foundations. Upon each conquest, they reg- 
ularly separated one fifth of their new territories for the use of 
charitable foundations ( vakuf ). When the Ottoman Empire fell, 
two thirds of all real property in its domains was owned by re- 
ligious foundations. The withdrawal of such property from circu- 
lation and fiom taxation was one of the causes of the Empire’s 

Critical students of foundations have always been concerned 
with their potential of power. In modern times, however, changing 
political concepts have sometimes produced special criticism re- 
lated to the trends of the moment. In 1950 Prime Minister Attlee 
of England appointed a committee to investigate charitable trusts. 
It questioned the merits and the place of voluntary charitable en- 
dowments in a welfare state. It concluded, however, that they 
must be given room and opportunity to contribute to the search 


for social advances. At the time, there were some 110,000 chari- 
table trusts in England, 30,000 of them in the field of education. 

In 1930 appeared a book written by Frederick P. Keppel, The 
Foundation , Its Place in American Life.* Dr. Keppel, a former 
Dean of Columbia College and a leading exponent and manager 
of foundations, reviewed the relative responsibilities of private 
endowments and government. He conceived of foundations as 
clearing houses for ideas (p. 98), holding that they must be will- 
ing to take the initiative and must show courage as well as pru- 
dence (p. 94). They must, he said, be ever on guard against in- 
dulging in propaganda, even virtuous propaganda; he obviously 
saw the danger of political identification in charitable work, mind- 
ful of the suspicions disclosed by the Walsh Commission's hear- 
ings on Industrial Relations. There may have been some incon- 
sistency in that he implored foundations not to wait for 
applications but to initiate their own programs, while at the same 
time he cautioned them against propaganda. 

Dr. Keppel agreed with Beardsley Ruml, another eminent foun- 
dation manager: “In general, private funds are most appropri- 
ately used for work of a more experimental character, or for 
activities *** not a public responsibility." (P. 43.) He supported 
the proposition that foundation money should be used as “venture 
capital" in matters concerning welfare and culture. He advocated 
reliance on expert advisory boards, acting as intermediaries for 
foundations, presumably competent to counsel on the relative 
merits of applications and the proper priority of causes. In taking 
this position, Dr. Keppel may have been partly responsible for 
many of the foundation practices relating to patronage and the 
selection of projects which have come under recent severe crit- 
icism. Yet he , himself, said, “The administrative camel has 
crowded the intellectual pilgrim out of his tent" at the same time 
that he referred to criticism of bureaucratic practices as “often 
unreasonable criticism." 

Dr. Keppel encouraged a pattern of operation which tends to 
make foundations the ultimate guides and judges of merits in the 

• Macmillan, 1930. 


intellectual world. He did this by implying that foundation trus- 
tees and managers should and could assume leadership in the 
realm of ideas with the help of intermediary expert organizations 
supported, in turn, by foundation funds. 

Edward C. Lindeman, another leader in the world of tax- 
exempt organizations, reviewed foundation significance in his 
book Wealth and Culture .* Whereas, the repon of the Walsh 
Committee had expressed mainly the fear of capitalist political 
machinations by the large foundations, Lindeman, then a social- 
ist, seems to have believed in and approved of their power to 
contribute toward social change. He said; 

The New State of the future will need social technicians 
who will be asked to engage in cultural planning just as 
technological experts and economists will be called upon to 
plan for orderly material production and distribution. 
Those who have exercised a similar function during the 
individualist-competitive phase of modern economy have 
been, to a very large extent, associated with foundations and 
trusts. Consequently it becomes pertinent to discover how 
these culture-determiners have operated in the past. 

Lindeman presented the true facts of life in the relation be- 
tween foundations and the recipients of support. His observations 
are in conflict with the apologetic contentions of those managers 
of endowments who testified in later Congressional hearings that 
they did not interfere with the intellectual pursuits of grantees. 
“Foundations,” he says (p. 19), 

do not merely exercise powers over those who accept their 
money. Such influence is obvious even when the foundation 
making grants insists on the contrary. A more subtle and 
much more widespread control comes about by Teason of 
the multitude of indirect relationships in which foundations 
play a part. Those who accept foundation grants often turn 

• Harcourt, Brace & Company, 1936. 


out to be radical critics, in private, of the control which 
has been exercised over them and their programs. Those 
who live in anticipation of receiving foundation grants are 
more servile. Another device for projecting foundation con- 
trol has become popular in recent years: foundations fre- 
quently supply the initial funds for a new project, these 
funds to be used for exploratory and conferencing purposes. 
In many cases the foundation acts as host for such prepara- 
tory groups. By the time the final project is formulated, it 
becomes clear that nothing will be proposed or performed 
which may be interpreted as a challenge to the orthodox 
conception of value which characterizes foundations as a 
whole. Very few important cultural projects of any size are 
consummated in this country without having experienced 
either the direct or indirect impact of foundation philosophy 
and influence. 

Here we have an expression of concern not any longer with 
economic power or political intention to protect capitalism but 
generally with the control of thought practiced by the dispensers 
of financial support, 

JLindeman, too, was suspicious of the secrecy under which so 
many endowments operate. He expressed surprise to discover 
that those who managed foundations and trusts did not wish to 
have these instruments investigated “by his privately conducted 
survey." He felt that as semi-public institutions they owed the 
public information about their activities. Looking at them as sym- 
bols of surplus wealth, he considered them “a consistently con- 
servative element in our civilization," (P. 12.) Speaking of trus- 
tees (p, 59), he condemned the 

repugnant arrogance of those who presume to impose cul- 
tural norms upon a society on no basis of warrant other 
than their pecuniary success under the dispensation of a 
competitive economy,*** In a decent society creative per-* 
50ns should not be expected to debase themselves as persons 


in order to gain the economic security which permits them 
to work. When they do so their true creativeness evaporates 
with tragic suddenness. 

The change in prevalent fashions of thinking and in the social 
climate arising during and after the Depression altered the style 
of foundation performance so much that later analysts of their 
impact on our culture have more and more expressed their con- 
cern at a record of anticonservative performance. A generation 
of critics that feared the adverse effect of “capitalistic” bias of 
trustees was succeeded by observers who, from their study of the 
support of ideas and organizations by tax-exempt foundations, 
concluded that foundations had become the breeding ground for 
socialist and related political movements and action. This more 
recent generation of students, while equally impressed with the 
potentials of control of education and of public affairs in general 
by self-perpetuating, wealthy organizations beyond public con- 
trol, has become concerned over the danger of foundation support 
of various undesirable concepts and movements having political 
implications. Among these are the ideas of the welfare state; the 
principles of economic determinism; excesses in the promotion of 
progressive education; the impairment of our national sovereignty; 
and even subversion. Hence the support by a majority in Congress 
of both the Cox and Reece Committee inquiries. 

Frank Hughes, in his book Prejudice and the Press * in connec- 
tion with an analysis of the Report of the Hutchins-Luce Com- 
mission on Freedom of the Press, points to the emergence of pro- 
fessional foundation executives as the group actually in control of 
the billions of dollars of foundation resources. (P. 292.) He 
suggests that the business men holding positions as trustees had 
abandoned their responsibility to a professional class of admin- 
istrators. As authority for this contention he quotes a book by 
Harrison and Andrews, both of The Russell Sage Foundation! : 
“The primary function of the board of trustees is the broad de- 

• Devin-Adair, 1950. 

\ American Foundations for Social Welfare , 1946, p. 44. 


termination of policies in harmony with the foundation’s charter. 
However completely authority has been vested in the board, it 
has neither the time nor usually the special knowledge required for 
detailed administration of the work of the larger foundations** V 
Because administrators come from teaching and administrative 
jobs in colleges and universities (he says virtually all are educa- 
tors or former educators), Hughes argues that they exhibit the 
progovernment bias prevalent in university circles. He attrib- 
utes this to the “big business” nature of higher learning and its 
dependence on government favor and government support. 

In the influence of the administrators on the choice of causes 
and recipients supported by grants, Hughes sees a real danger 
to the Republic. He accuses foundations of commonly practicing 
interlocking management together with some of the large uni- 
versities (pp. 284-297); of giving money, with exceptions only, 
to supervised projects; of acting as, and supporting, propaganda 
agencies; of making little money available to foster individual 
and independent thought and research. “A more tight and monop- 
olistic control of great wealth would be hard to find in any other 
segment of American economy.” Their interlocking with the 
boards of large universities is documented by numerous names of 
multiple trusteeship holders. He points to the invasion of founda- 
tion boards of trustees by the trustees of universities, in addition 
to the emergence of university teachers as the professional man- 
agers of foundations. He quotes a study that found fifty-four trus- 
teeships in twenty-nine foundations held by men who were also 
trustees of universities. 

Frank Hughes fears for the freedoms of America. He is a con- 
servative, but his criticism, like that of the generation of Senator 
Walsh or Edward C. Lindeman, is essentially based on the ab- 
stract fear of bigness and concentration of power as a political 
factor. Like earlier students of foundations, he is concerned with 
foundation support of selected political ideas and favored institu- 
tions. Like his predecessors from the opposing political camp, he 
gives insufficient attention to the impact of foundation giving on 
cultural patterns and on the motivations for creativity. Whether 


one agrees with the political bias of today’s or yesterday’s analysts 
of the impact of tax-exempt organizations on public affairs, the 
problem of the relationship between money and creative genius 
demands major examination. 

Such examination has been undertaken recently, among others, 
by William H. Whyte, Jr., an editor of Fortune magazine, in his 
book The Organization Man.* Whyte, who had previously cov- 
ered the story of The Ford Foundation in magazine articles, is 
well informed about current foundation practices. In his book he 
deals with the disastrous impact of organization techniques on 
the life of America. He attributes to them a growing force for con- 
formism, threatening in the end to destroy all vestiges of genius, 
individual responsibility and initiative, and with them the con- 
cepts of individual independence and liberty so dear to earlier 
generations. In the corporate mechanics of the foundations he 
sees one of the most menacing trends resulting from the social 
patterns of an age controlled by organization bureaucrats. He 
contends that the flow of really good ideas and scientific achieve- 
ment is hindered rather than advanced by the habitual bigness of 
corporation- or foundation-supported research projects. 

America, he says, has been borrowing ideas from Europe, es- 
pecially in basic research, from nations favored neither by large 
industrial-research operations nor by the bounty of giant tax- 
exempt foundations. Organization support favors team research. 
Our learned journals are increasingly publishing papers by two or 
more authors, indicating a preference for group performance over 
individual problem study. Planning of scientific work by com- 
mittee has become the accepted pattern. Consequently scientists 
do not merely submit their findings to the judgment of others — as 
has been the case through the ages of learned discourse. They 
now depend on others also in the early stage, when they decide 
what specific problems to investigate. Even if committees of or- 
ganization functionaries do not form an interlocking directorate, 
according to Whyte, they are “a reflection of the concentrations of 
influences normal in the academic world. But for that very reason, 

♦ Simon & Schuster, 1956. 


the ambitious younger man — and scientists are just as ambitious as 
anybody else — takes his cues from these guides, and those who 
prefer to look into questions unasked by others need a good bit of 
intellectual fortitude to do so.” (P. 222.) 

Whyte believes that the distraction offered by the lure of funds 
for organization-favored projects seriously impairs the creative 
potential of our scientists. He quotes an example of a meeting of 
twenty top scientists in a particular field for the purpose of listen- 
ing to the plans of a chairman of a great foundation. About eight 
of these men were on the verge of some really important work, he 
reports. But as no indication of interest in the preferences of the 
scientists was given by the foundation chairman, the meeting 
dealt only with his plans and projects calling for fresh starts. The 
feeling prevailed that the work to be financed by the foundation 
would “be in the long run a net subtraction” of the scientific as- 
sets previously accumulated by the participating scholars. Whyte 
fears the consequences of such usurpation of the basic role of the 
scientist by a scientific and fund bureaucracy. “The most fertile 
new ideas,” he says, quoting L. L. Whyte, "are those which 
transcend established, specialized methods and treat some new 
problem as a single task*** cooperative groups, from great indus- 
trial concerns to small research teams, inevitably tend to rely on 
what is already acceptable as common ground* **.” 

The increasing dependence of research on support by grants 
forces scientists into a vicious circle, described by Curt Richter of 
Johns Hopkins in the following words quoted from W. H. Whyte, 
Jr. (p. 225): 

In making application for a grant before World War II, a 
few lines or at most a paragraph or two sufficed for the 
experimental design; now it may extend over six to eight 
single-spaced typewritten pages. And even then committee 
members may come back for more details. Under these cir- 
cumstances, passing the buck has come to be practiced very 
widely. Projects are passed from Committee to Committee 
— to my knowledge, in one instance six Committees — largely 


because at no place along the line did any one believe that 

he had adequate information to come to a firm decision. 

The control imposed on a scientist by the requirement that 
his research designs be approved by the members of numerous 
giant committees will bring his ideas down to the lowest intel- 
lectual common denominator. It will impose on him the most 
powerful pressure to conform to a pattern of mediocrity. Whyte 
ridicules the argument presented for scientific teamwork: that the 
group, even in the realm of thought, is superior to the individual. 
The foundations have not responded to the challenge to invigor- 
ate individual research. "Instead of countering the bureaucra- 
tization of research they are intensifying it.” (P. 230.) 

It is no wonder that so many creative individuals have been 
conditioned to abandon individual projects. The climate pro- 
duced in the world of ideas by the large foundations, upon whose 
support so many scholars must rely for research, is not favorable 
to individual projects. Such scholars are often seduced into group 
research because of the difficulty of getting individual grants and 
because of the financial lure of generous foundation subsidy for 
large projects. This lure draws many away from potentially crea- 
tive work and the pursuit of new discovery, and leads them into 
Sterile fields tended by conformists. Whyte states that, with few 
exceptions (the Guggenheim foundations being an outstanding 
one), the great foundations concentrate their giving on institu- 
tions and on big team projects. Where individual grants are 
eventually contemplated, these foundations generally rely on 
other organizations and institutions to select from among applica- 
tions. Whyte gives this shocking example of "projectitis” and the 
neglect of the individual researcher. He says that he approached 
thirteen top sociologists "not working on currently fashionable 
problems but who were thought first rate.” (P. 238.) He found 
that seven had applied to one of the big three foundations (Ford, 
Rockefeller, and Carnegie) for giants and all but one had been 
turned down. He said that, with one exception, they all felt they 
would not get sympathetic consideration by these foundations. 


In pointing out their achievements, foundations offer a long list 
of contributions made by their grantees in the sciences, and a 
shorter list of outstanding foundation-supported accomplishments 
in the arts. Yet, again and again, they have been severely crit- 
icized for the general sterility of their products and for the tend- 
ency to elaborate old ideas instead of venturing into the daring 
unorthodoxies.* Whyte points out what has become a bureau- 
cratic feature of this big-project process fostered by most of the 
large foundations — the tendency toward project self-perpetuation. 
He says: “Many a project gets to a point where its main reason 
for being is to produce more research to justify a grant for more 
research***.” (P. 236.) 

He quotes J. A. Gengerelli, head of the Psychology Depart- 
ment of the University of California, Los Angeles: 

We have a social force that selectively encourages and re- 
wards the scientific hack. There is a great hustle and bustle, 
a rushing back and forth to scientific conferences, a great 
plethora of $50,000 grants for $100 ideas. I am suggesting 
that scientific, technical, and financial facilities are such in 
this country as to encourage a great number of mediocrities 
to go into science, and to seduce even those with creative 
talent and imagination to a mistaken view of the nature of 
the scientific enterprise. (P. 239.) 

The unquestionable merits of a substantial part of what founda- 
tions have done and continue to do for the public welfare should 
not absolve them from criticism whenever their chosen prefer- 
ences, or the unintended by-products of their manner of opera- 
tion, develop into dangers to the Republic. Such dangers have 
been demonstrated by public investigators and by private ob- 
servers in the potential and real influence of foundation power in 
the field of politics. To this observation has now been added a 
fear of the far-reaching influence of foundation-controlled money 

• My use of the term "unorthodoxies” requires explanation. What is orthodox 
today may be daring tomorrow; and what was daring twenty or thirty years 
ago may be orthodox today. A certain form of "liberalism" is currently ortho- 
dox in intellectual circles. 


in the realm of ideas and on patterns of creative behavior of scien- 
tists and artist s. 

Whether foundation managers like to admit their influence or 
not, foundation giving most obviously has an enormous impact on 
education, on social thinking, and ultimately on political action. 
This influence reaches the public through the schools and acad- 
demies, through publicity, and through educational and other as- 
sociations dedicated to public and international affairs. Founda- 
tions per se are neither good nor bad. It is the people who run 
them who must account, morally, to the public. It is these man- 
agers who are responsible for foundation performance. The laws 
under which foundations operate are, to say the least, imperfect, 
But a reform of the law can impose only negative checks and bal- 
ances on foundation spending and can never convert juridical 
persons to a truly creative pattern of action. Short of hampering 
foundations to a point of ineffectiveness, all the legislator can do is 
to protect the public against certain abuses of power. Only the 
trustees and managers of foundations themselves can direct the 
application of tax-exempt funds more intelligently to the public 


In his statement to the Reece Committee in 1954, Mr. H. Rowan 
Gaither, then President of The Ford Foundation, estimated the 
annual contributions to philanthropy in the United States at 
$5,600,000,000. Of this sum, he iaid, less than 3 percent came 
from foundations. There can be no doubt that foundations repre- 
sent, financially, but a small part of the philanthropic world. Ac- 
cording to figures published by The American Association of 
Fund-Raising Counsel, Inc., annual charitable donations in 1956 
had reached the astounding figure of $6,100,000,000, Endow- 
ments and properties of privately supported religious, educational, 
health, and welfare institutions had increased in 1956 by an esti- 
mated $1,400,000,000 and now exceeded $42,000,000,000. Of this 
total, religious institutions owned about $12,200,000,000; and 
about 53 percent of all donations were for religious purposes. 


Education consumed g percent of the total; contributions to phil- 
anthropic and charitable foundations, something like 3 percent. 
The Association of Fund-Raising Counsel, Inc., estimates that, out 
of about 40,000 organizations listed by the Internal Revenue 
Service as tax exempt, the number of those engaged in giving is 
about 6,000. It estimates, further, that such foundations own 
assets running between $7,000,000,000 and $9,500,000,000. 

Mr. Gaither was on weak ground, however, if he sought to 
prove the relative unimportance of foundations through financial 
comparison with other philanthropic media. Foundations occupy 
a unique place in our society for many reasons, of which two are 
peculiarly important for distinguishing them from other philan- 
thropic bodies. One is that foundations are not subject to the nor- 
mal forms of control by which other institutions are checked, such 
as responsibility to a constituency or membership, or to an aca- 
demic body. The second is that, under the influence of the “ven- 
ture capital” theory, so much foundation money has been chan- 
neled in favor of social change. 

Only a minority of foundations has fallen victim to the obsession 
for social change. But among this minority are to be found some 
of the wealthiest and some of the oldest endowments. They have 
adopted the concept that foundations should be clearing-houses 
for ideas, and they must accept responsibility for the results of 
their selected patronage. Such responsibility, as John D. Rocke- 
feller, Jr., put it at the hearings of the Walsh Commission, may re- 
sult in legislative steps to protect the interests of the public. 

Foundations cannot deny their public responsibility. The Rus- 
sell Sage Foundation, a leader in the foundation world, specializ- 
ing in philanthropic research, has repeatedly insisted upon public 
accounting of foundation finances and activities. Mr. Dean Rusk, 
President of The Rockefeller Foundation and of the General Edu- 
cation Board, said, in his statement to the Reece Committee; “We 
are convinced that tax-exempt organizations should make regular 
public reports about their funds and activities.” Many, though not 
all, of the large foundations have, for years, issued public reports, 
thus implicitly recognizing their responsibility to the public. 


Large foundations can do more harm, as well as more good, 
than smaller foundations. But even comparatively small founda- 
tions can have an impact on society disproportionate to their 
monetary size, particularly when promoting a seductive idea 
promising better things for society. When they are ready to tamper 
with the public welfare by pursuing particular brands of social 
philosophy advocated by their managers, the dynamics of their 
use can give these smaller foundations an importance far beyond 
their arithmetical magnitude. 

Mr. F. Emerson Andrews, in his Philanthropic FoundationSj 
writing of the venture capital concept, has this to say: 

Because of their relative freedom from governmental and 
other controls, it has been suggested that foundations may 
have a special mandate to enter fields of controversy, where 
the explosive nature of the issues would make suspect the 
findings of less independent organizations and where the 
needed financing from any other source may prove difficult. 

( p - 1 9 *) 

Following this interpretation of the venture-capital concept, the 
work of even comparatively small foundations can obviously have 
enormous impact on our society. A few examples will illustrate: 

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a substan- 
tial foundation, but a dwarf compared with the giants like Ford, 
Rockefeller, and the Carnegie Corporation, has achieved stupen- 
dous importance and power. By 1953, its net assets, despite heavy 
disbursements, had about doubled to $20,000,000. Spending an- 
nually between $500,000 and $600,000, the endowment achieved 
a key position in the areas of foreign relations and international or- 
ganizations. Its influence, increasing over the past 47 years, has 
reached into the Department of State, into the law schools where 
international law is taught, into the foreign offices of other nations, 
and into the United Nations and its associated organizations. 

Through concentrated efforts in publishing, in the organization 
and management of conferences, and in cooperation with various 


other groups, some subsidized, it has reached a position of world- 
wide influence. It is no longer a mere clearing-house for ideas; It 
has become a proponent of the particular ideas of its trustees, its 
staff, and an entourage sympathetic to certain special concepts of 
international relations promoted by the foundation itself. The stra- 
tegic use of its relatively small funds has resulted in the mobiliza- 
tion of additional funds behind causes favored by the endowment, 
in the form of matched grants supplied by other foundations 
within its sphere of influence. Large funds have also come from 
membership contributions to organizations supported by the en- 
dowment and, in some instances, created or fathered by it. 

Some smaller foundations, like The Hillman Foundation, have 
found their influence greatly amplified through the granting of an- 
nual awards. Five were recently announced, of $500 each. These 
small awards received considerable newspaper publicity. They 
were granted, the newspapers reported, “for outstanding work in 
journalism, magazines and books in 1956.“ The "outstanding” 
works selected, however, were all political. Consistent with the 
policy of The Hillman Foundation, they concerned political goals 
of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, of which the 
late Mr. Hillman, as a tribute to whom the foundation had been 
created, had been president. In addition to an award to The 
New York Times for its editorial treatment of the Near East crisis 
a reporter of the Des Moines Tribune received one for articles on 
segregation; an editor of Harper’s, one for an editorial attacking 
censorship efforts of private organizations; Robert Penn Warren, 
one for an article in Life on segregation; and Professor Walter 
Gellhorn of Columbia, one for his book on Individual Freedom 
and Government Restraints . 

Other foundations have offered public prizes and, in this way, 
multiplied their public visibility and increased immeasurably 
their opportunities for propaganda. The Nobel prize, as well as 
the Stalin prize, illustrate this method of publicity-producing 
giving. Though the purpose of the Nobel prize is essentially apolit- 
ical, while the Stalin prize (or whatever has taken its place since 


Stalin's loss of standing in Russia) is merely a political propaganda 
gesture, both evidence the publicity impact which a relatively 
small amount of money can have if used strategically. 

An example of the sometimes explosive nature of foundation 
giving is the support by foundations of the late Dr. Kinsey in what 
he called sex research.* The Rockefeller Foundation supported 
the National Research Council's Committee for research in prob- 
lems of sex, with a total of $1,755,000 from 1931 to 1954. Of this 
sum, the activities conducted by Dr. Kinsey received some 
$414,000 from 1941 to 1949, as reported by The Rockefeller 
Foundation to the Reece Committee. This amount is microscopic 
compared with the total of $6,000,000,000 annually spent on phi- 
lanthropy in the United States. But the impact of this compara- 
tively small sum on one subject was quite out of proportion to the 
relative size of the two figures. One may approve or disapprove of 
Dr. Kinsey's efforts, and judge variously their impact upon our sex 
mores. But the Kinsey incident does show that comparatively 
small donations may have big repercussions in the realm of ideas. 


What control the Federal Government may exercise over founda- 
tions is based almost entirely on the tax law. The State under 
whose laws a foundation is organized might penalize it in various 
ways or even dissolve it for misconduct. All that the Federal Gov- 
ernment can do, however, is to withdraw its tax exemption and 
the corresponding tax benefits to donors. What, then, are the bases 
for such punishment? 

The tax law is woefully weak. The controlling statute is worded 
quite generally and loosely; the courts have been inclined to in- 
terpret these loose provisions in favor of the foundations; and, 
in any event, the Internal Revenue Service is not equipped or 
manned to do the "policing” necessary to determine when the law 
has been violated. 

• The substance of his activity will be discussed in chapter 4 as an important 
case illustrating the attempt by foundations to evade responsibility for the 
results of their grants. 


The most important limitation in the law is the one which pro* 
liibits political activity. This prohibition is now covered princi- 
pally by Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1954 (formerly paragraph [6] of Section 101) in this way: a 
foundation may qualify for tax exemption, 

no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on 
propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legisla- 
tion, and which does not participate in, or intervene in 
(including the publishing or distribution of statements), 
any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public 

This test, quantitatively, is weak. What is a "substantial” part of 
its activities? Dollars? Numbers of grants? Impact? It is also weak 
qualitatively. Is legislation "influenced” only if a foundation di- 
rectly supports the passage or the defeat of a particular piece of 
legislation — or does a foundation also "influence” legislation by 
promoting a political theory which indirectly results in a change 
of law or is intended to? 

The term "propaganda” is not defined in the statute. Certainly 
there could have been no intention to prohibit all propaganda, as 
that would have constituted an attack on the churches, which are 
entitled to engage in religious propaganda. "Political” propa- 
ganda was intended, certainly, but the phrase "to influence legis- 
lation” can be interpreted to be attributive to "propaganda” and 
thus to limit it. 

The wording of the statute created many ambiguities. It is some- 
times extremely difficult to draw the line, for example, between 
those forms of education which are essential or desirable in our 
democratic society and those which have as their ends the promo- 
tion of political value-concepts in the realm of ideas. Numerous 
foundations pursue their political ways free of interference by the 
Internal Revenue Service because of the ambiguity and weakness 
of the statute referred to. 

For example, The Robert Schalkenbach Foundation of New 
York, a small foundation with an intensive publishing and training 


program, is dedicated to the promotion of Henry George’s single 
tax idea. This endowment spends its money to persuade the pub- 
lic that real estate taxes can and should replace all other forms of 
taxation. It probably abstains from lobbying and from any direct 
interference with the legislative process. But it has probably in- 
doctrinated thousands of more or less intelligent citizens. What 
it does, must, in the end, amount to propaganda to influence legis- 
lation. Yet the foundation would undoubtedly claim its efforts 
to be “educational.” 

A foundation has, for years, supported the World Calendar As- 
sociation and the efforts of Miss Elizabeth Achelis to introduce, 
world-wide, a new method of computing the calendar year. Her 
efforts may be meritorious, but this seemingly apolitical activity 
does have legislative aspects. How can a new calendar be 
adopted without legislative action? 

Supported by a foundation for world government endowed 
with 31,000,000 by Mrs. Anita McCormick Blaine, a tax-exempt 
Committee to Frame a World Constitution, under Chancellor 
Robert Hutchins of the University of Chicago, wrote a program 
for a World Republic in 1948. The foundation was to finance “a 
public educational campaign in the principles of world govern- 
ment.” The proposed constitution advocated, among other things, 
a national surrender to a World Government of expropriation 
rights; control of plans for the improvement of the world’s physi- 
cal facilities; the power of taxation, regulation of transportation, 
and similar prerogatives of national governments. Dr. Hutchins, 
now President of The Ford Foundation’s off-shoot, The Fund for 
the Republic, stated in 1948, and may well have believed, that 
“world government is necessary, therefore it is — or must be made 
— possible.” But the expression of such a belief was hardly apoliti- 
cal, and the support by a tax-exempt foundation of the program 
which Dr. Hutchins supported was hardly the support of “educa- 

The American Labor Education Service, Inc., is a tax-exempt or- 
ganization. Among its purposes, it lists: “to cooperate with the 
labor movement in intensifying education in the field of interna- 


tional affairs; and to encourage the study of such issues within the 
groups and unions/’ It becomes apparent, however, from an ex- 
amination of this organization’s literature, that the “education” 
referred to is essentially propaganda for the political labor move- 
ment. In announcements of ALES activities are to be found these 
“educational” topics: “How Can Workers* Education Advance 
Labor's Economic and Political Objectives”; “Political Action for 
Labor”; and “Political Action Techniques.” In a news letter dis- 
cussing the Taft-Hartley Bill, the ALES said: “The passage of the 
Taft-Hartley Bill indicates among other things the need for an in- 
tensive ‘push* in labor education. The American Labor Education 
Service is equipped to furnish this ’push’***.” 

Other examples of the political nature of this foundation’s work 
will be found in Chapter 6 and in the staff report on the ALES 
to the Reece Committee,* This foundation received financial sup- 
port from The Rockefeller Foundation. Perhaps the presence of 
the word “Education” in the name of the American Labor Educa- 
tion Service was sufficient to prove that its work was purely “edu- 

Another strange "educational” tax-exempt organization is The 
League for Industrial Democracy, formerly The Intercollegiate 
Socialist Society. In a booklet entitled, significantly, “Revolt,” it 
described its work as follows: 

The League for Industrial Democracy is a militant educa- 
tional movement which challenges those who would think 
and act for a “new social order based on production for use 
not for profit.” That is a revolutionary slogan. It means that 
members of the LID think and work for the elimination of 
capitalism, and the substitution for it of a new order, in 
whose building the purposeful and passionate thinking of 
the student and worker today will play an important part. 

The LID has only a modest budget of $50,000 a year, some of 
it supplied by foundations, but its influence has been wide and 

• Reece Committee Hearings, Part II, p. 1158 el seq. 


It is understandable that the Bureau of Internal Revenue con- 
tested the tax-exempt status of the LID. However, the U. S. Cir- 
cuit Court of Appeals, in 1931,* upheld its tax exemption by ap- 
plying the broadest possible interpretation of the term "educa- 
tion,” against the contention of die Collector of Internal Revenue 
that the organization was political. It has enjoyed tax exemption 
ever since; it goes about its business of promoting socialism, with* 
out harassment by the Internal Revenue Service. 

In a lengthy letter submitted to the Reece Committee, Dr. 
Laidler of the LID insisted upon a similarity between the work of 
the LID and some college courses in the social sciences. He said 
that books and pamphlets published by the LID were, in fact, 
used in some college courses. Using this as a major premise, and 
the fact that colleges are educational as a minor premise, he pro- 
duces a syllogism with the conclusion that the work of the LID is 
also educational. 

Semantic difficulties in interpreting statutes are not unusual in 
our system of law, or in any other. Admittedly our courts have a 
problem in trying to draw the line between education in its ac- 
ceptable sense and “education” which is political propaganda 
intended to influence legislation. They are inclined to interpret 
punitive statutes liberally in favor of the litigant, strictly against 
the government. This should probably be so. But decisions such 
as that in the LID case exhibit a generosity of interpretation so 
extreme as to make the punitive statute virtually worthless in so 
far as it proscribes propaganda activities by foundations directed 
toward influencing legislation. If tax exemption is available to the 
LID, which “educates” to socialist ends, there is no reason why it 
should not be available to organizations which educate to other 
partisan and political ends such as segregation, other forms of 
racial and religious discrimination, polygamy, nudism, and fas- 

If the law is sufficiently ambiguous to permit political propa- 
ganda under the guise of education, this ambiguity does not, how- 
ever, justify foundation managers in supporting such activities, 
• Wcyl v. Commissioner, 48 F. («d) 8w. 


An interpretation of the venture capital theory permitting the use 
of tax-exempt funds for partisan purposes would be a palpable 
absurdity. It is a different matter with organizations created to 
pursue partisan ends and using the dues of members for this pur- 
pose. The managers of tax-exempt endowments act as trustees not 
only for the donors to such foundations but also for the public. 
They have as little right to use their trust funds for partisan ends 
as they have to put them into their own pockets. 

Not all tax-exempt foundations have received as generous treat- 
ment from the courts as did the League for Industrial Democracy, 
The Twentieth Century Fund lost its tax exemption for the 
years 1935 to 1939 because of its advocacy of enabling laws on 
credit-union extension. In 1925 the World Peace Foundation lost 
its tax-exempt status because it acted as a distributor of League 
of Nations literature, then considered partisan propaganda* It re- 
gained its exemption in 1928 because, by that time, its activities 
were no longer deemed an attempt to influence legislation. Re- 
cently the exemption of The Institute of Pacific Relations was re- 
voked for reasons which shall be discussed later. There have been 
other cases of exemption denial. Looking at them together, one is 
impressed with their lack of consistency, and this is no wonder. 
Each case depends upon the semantic interpretation of the con- 
trolling statute which appeals to the court before which it is 


The courts are faced with another semantic difficulty when 
obliged to determine which organizations arc entitled to tax ex- 
emption because their activities are truly within the scope of the 
term “religious/’ and which ones cross the line and serve political 
ends. In the course of their legitimate religious activities, churches 
and religious bodies often develop ancillary programs which are 
not religious in the strict sense of the word. In our complex so- 

• In hia testimony before the Reece Committee, Assistant Commissioner of 

Internal Revenue Norman Sugarman offered a most interesting discussion of 

the cases and of the principles applied by the courts and the Revenue Service. 

See Hearings, p. 429 et seq . 


ciety, religious groups frequently become involved in legislative 
problems. They fight for school buses for religious schools, for 
public support of such schools, for temperance, for Sunday ob- 
servance. They participate actively in public discussions regard- 
ing the divorce laws, birth control, religious instruction in the pub- 
lic schools, etc. 

There are in existence many para-religious organizations whose 
only relationship to religion is that their membership comes from 
only one confession. Such organizations claim tax exemption, 
though principally devoted to the advancement of political group 
interests in legislation. Some of them maintain registered lobbyists 
in Washington. They are dedicated to such diverse causes as the 
political and financial support of the State of Israel; the fight 
against segregation; the liberalization of the immigration laws for 
the benefit of their co-religionists; and opposition to the political 
aims of certain other religious groups. 

There can be little doubt that some of these militant organiza- 
tions, spending their tax-exempt funds openly to influence legisla- 
tion, should be deprived of their tax advantage. But there is little 
promise of this happening. Both the legislature and the courts are 
understandably reluctant to take any steps which, rightly or 
wrongly, might be called an interference with the freedom of re- 
ligion. In addition, as far as the courts are concerned, the law is 
regrettably ambiguous as it stands. 


In statements filed with the Reece Committee, some foundation 
managers maintained that they were not responsible for the fre- 
quency with which grants have been applied to the advancement 
of social change toward anticapitalism. They attributed the preva- 
lence of New Deal sentiment, in the literature and programs 
which they have supported, to the political and intellectual cli- 
mate of the times. If foundations have favored quasi-socialisL “lib- 
eral” causes and discriminated against “conservative” programs, 
it may well be due to some extent, to the fact that the preference 


had already existed in the academic world. Also, there may have 
been a penetration of foundation boards and administrative ranks 
by anticonservative professionals (academicians, scholars, and ad- 
ministrators), with a resulting adoption of their current idiosyncra- 
sies by the endowments. 

This tendency was accelerated by the use of intermediary agen- 
cies and individual "expert” consultants. The judging of the mer- 
its of grant proposals was delegated to these agencies and con- 
sultants. Such delegation cannot, however, shift responsibility 
away from the foundation managers. Advisory experts were 
chosen for their standing in the academic world. But the structure 
of academic life does not differ from other structures in this sense 
— it encompasses a web of political forces. The politically minded 
manipulator often is rewarded with eminent status, whether he is 
a true scholar or not. The symbol of academic prestige is not 
necessarily an evidence of learning or of sound social judgment. 
Once an academician is selected to act as an "expert,” he be- 
comes one in the public eye because he has been so chosen. He 
may have succeeded in coming into office chiefly because he had 
developed good “public relations.” If that was the case, he is 
likely to support whatever fads and foibles enabled him to suc- 
ceed, rather than the thought of truly creative minds. 

These "experts” have almost invariably followed the current 
fashion which grew up among teachers and political scientists un- 
der a barrage of communist and socialist propaganda and under 
the impact made by the depression of 1930. This fashion is one of 
confidence in the power of man to create heaven on earth by 
manipulating the structure of government. The belief in radical 
change is manifested by the statement of William C. Carr, Execu- 
tive Secretary of the National Education Association of the United 
States, to the Reece Committee. According to the NEA, it is not 
the American ideal to be hostile to change. It attributes the great- 
ness of America to the freedom of its citizens “to propose and 
adopt modifications in the structure of the Government, and of 
their other institutions,” The NEA believes it is the right and duty 


of good citizens to adapt their political and social institutions, 
within the broad circumstances of our constitutional freedoms, to 
meet new circumstances and conditions, 

Mr. Carr is quoted not to contest his point but to bring out that 
the change which he supports is clearly political. It would seem 
apparent, therefore, that the advocacy of such change, having es- 
sential political implications, is not a proper field for a foundation 
whose tax exemption is granted by the grace of the entire public. 
Yet some of the large foundations seem to have adopted an almost 
religious belief in change for change’s sake. Even in the absence 
of a conspiracy among foundations to promote change, the cumu- 
lative effect of this almost unison approach, and the absence of 
any substantial support for contrary movements looking toward 
social stability, seems to warrant questioning whether these 
foundations are truly performing their trust duty to the public. 

Trends come into being, from time to time, and may persist 
whether foundation-supported or not. The real responsibility of 
foundations rests in their ability to provide war chests in the bat- 
tle of ideas. However much foundation managers may talk about 
their right and duty to use their trust funds as venture capital, 
there can be little doubt that in their “ventures” they have given 
preference to the political ideas held T>y cliques of academicians 
and to the proponents of the ideas who are generally identifiable 
as leftist. 

Foundations should be responsible for a balanced application 
of their support. The normal checks and balances in our public 
life can be annihilated through one-sided foundation support of 
the forces calling for change. Obviously, change is often desirable 
and even necessary, but not per se . The uncritical support by 
foundations of the idea that we must have change for change’s 
sake justified two recent Congresses in suspecting foundations of 
being agencies frequently favoring undesirable and destructive 




The giant foundation can exercise enormous power through the 
direct use of its funds. Moreover, it materially increases this power 
and its influence by building collateral alliances which serve 
greatly to insulate it against criticism. It is likely to find friends 
among the banks which hold its great deposits; the investment 
and brokerage houses which serve its investment problem; the ma- 
jor law firms which act as its counsel; and the many firms, institu- 
tions, and individuals with which it deals and which it benefits. 
By careful selection of a trustee, here and there, from among 
proprietors and executives of newspapers, periodicals, and other 
media of communication, it can assure itself of adulation and sup- 
port. By engaging “public relations counselors” (ethically, and 
even legally, a questionable practice), it can further create for it- 
self a favorable press and enthusiastic publicity. 

All its connections and associations, plus the often sycophantic 
adulation of the many institutions and individuals who had re* 
ceived largess from the foundation, give it an enormous aggregate 
of power and influence. This power extends beyond its immediate 
circle of associations, to those who hope to benefit from its bounty. 
Institutions and individuals are powerfully attracted to the poli- 
cies of the foundation within their circles of interest and, as long 
as the magnetic force in the form of funds persists, are unlikely 
to change their orientation. 



The foundation’s direct power is the power of money. Privately 
financed educational institutions have had a bad time during the 
period of rapidly increasing costs. Foundation grants have be- 
come so important a source of support that college and university 
presidents cannot often afford to ignore the opinions and wishes of 
the executives who distribute foundation largess. Such administra- 
tors will freely admit that they do not like to receive restricted or 
earmarked grants and would far prefer to be unfettered in their 
disposition of money given to their institutions. But they will also 
admit that they usually dare not turn down a grant, however in- 
consistent with their policy, priority of goals, or urgent needs it 
may be, for fear they might earn the displeasure of the granting 

The situation permits large foundations to exercise a profound 
influence upon public opinion and upon the course of public af- 
fairs. For academic opinion today, as the Reece Committee report 
put it, “is the opinion of the intellectuals of tomorrow and will 
very likely be reflected into legislation and in public affairs there- 

Nor is the control exercisable by a great foundation limited to 
its direct relations with the executives and trustees of educational 
institutions. Pressure starts at the very bottom of the academic 
ladder. A foundation grant may enable a beginner to attain the 
precious doctorate which is the first rung. To secure such assist- 
ance, is it not likely that he will conform to what he may believe 
would please those who give him their financial grace? Then he 
becomes a teacher, at a salary sometimes below that of an ordi- 
nary laborer. Without supplemental help through a foundation 
grant, he can support his family only in poverty; he cannot set 
aside the time or the money necessary to enable him to do such 
study, research, and writing as may advance him in his career. Is 
he, then, likely to run counter to what may be wanted by a foun- 
dation considering him for a grant? This teacher finds, as he pro- 
gresses in his career, that he has few sources from which to 
increase his income other than the foundations; without such ac- 
cessory income, he cannot achieve those extracurricular but aca- 


demic distinctions which give him prestige and advance him in 
the education hierarchy. These distinctions come often from re- 
search and writing. Great, dispensing intermediary organizations 
control learned journals and university presses; they hold the key 
to academic publications and form an effective instrument of 

Foundations rarely impose conformity in any direct manner. 
But they often do so through the selection of grantees and the re- 
jection or approval of suggested subjects and methods of re- 
search. An academician who is “in” with a great foundation can 
hope for advancement to the top. One who is not can still get 
there, but it is infinitely more difficult. And, as the Reece Com- 
mittee said: 

Just as the president of the institution, whose main job 
today may well be fund raising, cannot afford to ignore the 
bureaucrats' wishes, so the academician cannot. Scholars and 
fund raisers both soon learn to study the predilections, 
preferences and aversions of foundations’ executives, and 
benefit from such knowledge by presenting projects likely 
to please them.* 

Foundation power poses a problem quite aside from the mo- 
mentary preferences of the managers of these funds. These man- 
agers may be no less conscientious than public servants. But, 
through the fact that they are free from the checks and controls by 
which public servants are restrained, there is less probability that 
their errors will ever be discovered; and, if they are discovered, 
that they will be reversed. 


In small foundations the trustees usually assume the actual work 
and responsibility for the examination of applications and the dis- 
pensing of grants. In the great ones it is almost standard practice 
for the trustees to act largely as window dressing. They may exer- 
cise the full power of management and direction if they wish, but 

# Report , p. 36. 


they do not do so. They go through the motions of control. They 
often debate issues; they frequently pass on and determine prin- 
ciples of operation; they consider and take action on many specific 
grants. But the limited time they devote to such work is not 
enough to enable them to exercise the degree of control and re- 
sponsibility which their duty requires. 

It is not inattention, it is not an unwillingness on the part of the 
trustees to accept responsibility, which creates this situation. It ii 
the fact that most of the great foundations have chosen to operate 
in such complex fashion that it is impossible for otherwise busy 
trustees, working for the foundation only part time, to perform 
adequately. Innumerable errors of a serious nature have been ac- 
quiesced in by eminent and intelligent trustees merely because 
they have not had the time to study, check, and follow the de- 
tailed operation of the foundation sufficiently — nor have they been 
able to discover and weigh factors of importance which came to 
the attention only of the foundation's executive employees. 

The unmanageable volume of business which confronts the 
trustees of a great foundation does not, however, excuse that dele- 
gation of power so often practiced. Such a delegation may be in 
order in a business enterprise, where the failure of its directors 
adequately to shoulder responsibility results merely in an un- 
happy profit-and-loss statement; all that can be lost is money. 
Foundation responsibility is not mere financial responsibility but, 
far more importantly, social responsibility. The power to venture 
into the realm of thought, to support and promote ideas, should 
not be delegated except in a minor, administrative sense. If the 
volume of work becomes excessive, it might be necessary to in- 
crease the number of trustees and to expect of them full-time at- 
tention to their duties. An alternative would be to let unquestion- 
ably responsible institutions, such as universities, take over the 
function which otherwise would be delegated to foundation em- 
ployees or subsidized intermediary organizations. 

In many cases, as Dr. Charles W. Briggs, Professor Emeritus of 
Columbia University, testified before the Reece Committee, the 
true operating heads of these foundations present a program to 


(he trustees which is “so general as to get approval and yet so in- 
definite as to permit activities which in the judgment of most com- 
petent critics are either wasteful or harmful * * *.“* Even the 
formulation of glittering generalities is usually left to administra- 
tive officers; the selection and proposal of individual grants and 
grantees, almost always* Where express approval by the trustees 
is required, they are, all too often, insufficiently informed — indeed, 
so often, rubber stamps* Such abandonment of trustee duties has 
led to the indefensible practice of leaving the selection of grantees 
to the professional managers of organizations created for the pur- 
pose of retailing the distribution of wholesale grants. 

An extreme instance of this is The Institute of Pacific Relations, 
itself a foundation and one of the retailers used by other founda- 
tions. To it, The Carnegie Corporation, The Carnegie Endowment 
for International Peace, and The Rockefeller Foundation con- 
tributed millions of dollars. Its record is now well known. The In- 
ternal Revenue Service disclosed in 1955 that it had revoked its 
tax exemption. Some years ago, after a detailed investigation of 
this foundation, the McCarran Committee came to the conclusion 
that The Institute of Pacific Relations had been virtually an organ 
of the Communist Party of the United States, It held that “at least 
since the mid-i 930*5, 0 

the net effect of IPR activities on United States public opin- 
ion has been pro-Communist and pro-Soviet, and has fre- 
quently and repeatedly been such as to serve international 
Communist and Soviet interests, and to subvert the interests 
of the United States.f 

On the board of directors (trustees) of The Institute of Pacific 
Relations were men of high caliber and excellent reputation. How, 
then, were officers of the Institute able to turn its activities to pro- 
Soviet objectives? Professor David N. Rowe explained this to the 
Reece Committee. Professor Rowe is an academician of the high- 
est standing. Recently on special assignment in Formosa, he had 

# Ibid., p. 23. 

t McCarran Committee Report , p. 84, 


been a member of the Yale Executive Committee on International 
Relations since 1950 and was Director of Studies from 1951 to 
1953. He is one of our foremost authorities on the Far East. 

Professor Rowe had himself been a director of The Institute of 
Pacific Relations for several years, resigning when he discovered 
some of its derelictions and found that he had no power as a direc- 
tor. The directors were dummies. The organization was run by 
an inner group of its executives. This controlling inner group man- 
aged to assemble directors who would either do their will or be 
too lax in diligence to discover the true nature of that to which 
they gave their assent. 

Professor Rowe testified that the executives, on one occasion, 
had refused to disclose to the board the names of those whom they 
were considering for the position of executive secretary. Asked 
what he did about it, Professor Rowe replied: 

What could I do? I was practically a minority of one. The 
board upheld their decision not to do this. It was not long 
after that, as I remember it, that I resigned from the 
board. They had a monopoly and they were bringing people 
like me in for the purposes of setting up a front and . . . 
giving a different kind of coloring to the membership of the 

Now let us look at the other side of this picture. Why did the 
trustees of The Rockefeller Foundation, for example, continue to 
make substantial donations to The Institute of Pacific Relations 
long after the time when, as the McCarran Committee indicated, 
there was evidence that the Institute had become an agent of com- 

It is a harrowing story. In 1944, Alfred Kohlberg, a director of 
the Institute who had become suspicious of its activities, brought 
facts to the attention of The Rockefeller Foundation that showed 
beyond any reasonable doubt the real character of the Institute. 
Even after discussion of the criticized conditions. The Rockefeller 

• Reece Committee Report , p. 29. 


Foundation continued to make substantial donations to it.* Its ex- 
cuse, that it wanted to help "reform” The Institute of Pacific Rela- 
tions, is not tenable. One does not go on making contributions to 
a pro-Communist organization in the hope of converting it away 
from communism. One cuts off its support. 

The answer, in the case of The Rockefeller Foundation, must be 
that its trustees were not fully aware of what was happening. Like 
the trustees of so many large foundations, they left most decisions 
to their employees, the officers of the foundation. The results were 
disastrous for our country. The IPR probably had more to do than 
any other single factor with conditioning our people to abandon 
the mainland of China to the Communists. Its influence even 
penetrated the State Department. And its support came chiefly 
from large tax-exempt American foundations. 

Kenneth Colegrove, Professor Emeritus of Politics at Northwest- 
ern University (at the time of his testimony he was on a temporary 
teaching assignment at Queens College), had this to say before 
the Reece Committee about foundation trustees: 

The large number of famous names on the list of trustees 
is due to an old superstition that our institutions must be 
headed by a famous group of men. And I will say frankly it 
is to impress Congress as well as the American people; to im- 
press public opinion as much as possible. It is an old super- 
stition. It is not necessary at all.f 

Professor Colegrove, an authority of the first rank, who had for 
eleven years been secretary-treasurer of The American Political 
Science Association, elaborated: 

Yes; undoubtedly many of the trustees would not serve if 
they felt that they would be called upon to do much more 
than go to the meetings, hear the reports and sometimes say 

• Mr. Joseph Willits was head of the Social Sciences Division of The Rocke- 
feller Foundation during the period in question. He was recently in charge of 
a Ford Foundation survey of the University of Pennsylvania. One wonders 
whether this survey will be as penetrating as the Rockefeller study of The 
Institute of Pacific Relations. 

■\lbid.j p. *8. 


not a single word. You would not have as brilliant, as lofty, 
as remarkable, a collection of men as trustees if you required 
a little more responsibility on their part.* 


In effect, then, most of the very large foundations are operated 
by professional employees who assume the functions of designing 
programs and determining and selecting grants and grantees. 
These functions are the essence of the fiduciary duty of the trus- 
tees. It was most distressing to the Reece Committee to find that 
such professionals, without themselves having fiduciary responsi- 
bility, exercise such vast power. As Professor Colegrove testified: 

In the aggregate, the officers of these foundations wield a 
staggering sum of influence and direction upon research, 
education and propaganda in the United States and even in 
foreign countries. 

The Committee had before it a mass of evidence of this bu- 
reaucratic power. Even its predecessor, the Cox Committee, had 
such evidence. It had, for example, received a letter from Dr. 
J. Fred Rippey, Professor of American History at Chicago, to which 
it apparently had paid little attention. Professor Rippey was in- 
censed at the extent to which decisions of vital importance were 
left to foundation bureaucrats, and expressed this opinion of 

But I have never been impressed by the superior wisdom 
of the foundation heads and executive committees. The 
heads tend to become arrogant; the members of the com- 
mittees are, as a rule, far from the ablest scholars in the 

The late Dr. Frederick P. Keppel, president of The Carnegie 
Corporation, once said that the officers of foundations steadily 
tend toward "an illusion of omniscience and omnipotence." 

• Ibid., p. 27. 

\Ibid.j p. 37. 


Foundation bureaucrats have become a unique class. Professor 
Colegrove testified that academicians “fawned” over them. The 
late Professor Merriam, in his day perhaps the most powerful fig- 
ure in the foundation world, once said: “Money is power, and for 
the last few years I have been dealing with more power than any 
professor should ever have in his hands.” * 

Dwight Macdonald gives a good view of these “philanthro- 
poids,” or professional foundation administrators: 

A phiIanthropoid* ## is the middleman between the philan- 
thropist and the philanthropee. His profession is the giving 
away of other people’s money, and he is the key figure in 
most of today’s great foundations now that the original 
donors are safely dead. Some two hundred and thirty people 
are employed by the Ford Foundation. [Most of these oc- 
cupy subordinate positions or are delegated to special work, 
Macdonald continues.] 

This leaves the forty-odd philanthropoids, who, for all prac- 
tical purposes, are the Ford Foundation. They screen the 
thousands of applications for grants that come in every 
year; they look into new fields for spending; they think up 
problems worth solving (the first problem a foundation 
faces is what is the problem) and select the institutions or 
the people to try to solve them; they carry on the nego- 
tiations, often protracted, and the inquiries, often delicate, 
that may or may not lead to a grant, and they follow up 
the grants that are made; they dictate the systolic flow of 
memoranda that is the blood stream of a modern foundation. 
Through all these activities, and always subject to the final 
vote of the trustees, the philanthropoids determine that 
this enterprise of benevolence or scholarship shall be nour- 
ished with Ford money, while that one shall not.f 

• Ibid., p. 57. 

t The Ford Foundation , the Men and the Millions — An Unauthorized Biogra» 
phy (New York; Reynal k Co., 1956), pp. 95, 96. First published as a series 
o£ "Profiles" in The New Yorker magazine. 


These philanthropoids, then, are the men with the power. 
Wherever they go in academic circles, they are received with ex- 
traordinary respect and listened to with concentrated attention. 
The president of a great university will hang on their words, hop- 
ing to catch some clue to the possibility of a substantial and badly 
needed grant. A professor, eminent and loaded with deserved 
honors, will listen deferentially to every word of this young man, 
whose opinions on academic subjects, relatively untutored though 
he may be, are of far more practical importance than those of his 
distinguished listener. A mere suggestion by one of these young 
men from the foundations can materially influence the direction 
of a project proposed by an institution or an academician. And to 
turn down a project suggested by this young man himself — that is 
far too dangerous for any university or professor to consider 
lightly. It is, indeed, rarely done. The risk is too great. 

I think of several trustees of great foundations, men with whom 
I happen to be acquainted and for whom I have great personal ad- 
miration. They have genuine stature and deserve every bit of the 
success and acclaim which they have earned by intelligence, en- 
ergy, and common sense in their own industrial fields. They are 
active or retired top executives of great corporations which were 
built partly upon their executive ability. Their extraordinary ca- 
pacities for direction, and their experience, qualify them for an 
important voice-in-council in our society. They have, however, 
only the most peripheral understanding of many of the fields of 
activity in which their foundations engage. 

They understand neither the lingo nor the substance of the ma- 
terials with which academicians work in these fields after a life- 
time of training. If they are convinced, for instance, by a foun- 
dation executive that the foundation should enter the field of 
“behavioral science” or “educational theory,” they can do little 
more than approve of the generality of appropriations for the 
purpose and leave all else to the hired executives who presume to 
know how to act as intermediaries between the trustees and the 
field. The trustees are at sea. They have the intelligence but not 
the time to absorb the subject. Thus, they cannot exercise judg- 


ment but must leave this to the professionals whom they employ. 
Nor can they even check the work of the professionals. They can 
only transfer their power to them and hope for the best. 

Something is wrong with such a method of operation. Trustees 
who direct great enterprises would never sanction methods of this 
kind in their own organizations. 


In his Philanthropic Foundations, F. Emerson Andrews illus- 
trates the financial power of a few big endowments. His figures 
are based on the number of foundations listed in directories 
(4,162), which is clearly a low figure; and upon an estimate of 
aggregate wealth (§7, 000, 000,000) which is at least 2 billion too 
low, but the comparisons he makes are, nevertheless, instructive. 
Gf the 4,162 foundations listed, 77, in 1953, held 3 billion of the 
aggregate of 7 billion in assets. Among the 77, six reported assets 
of more than $100,000,000 each, their combined value being 
$1,269,500,000. These giants are listed as Ford ($520,000,000), 
Rockefeller ($318,000,000), Carnegie Corporation ($196,000,000), 
W. K. Kellogg ($109,800,000), Duke ($108,000,000), and Pew 
Memorial ($104,900,000).* Mr. Andrews listed another seven foun- 
dations with assets running between fifty and one hundred mil- 
lions each. Some other foundations are so closely allied in origin 
with some of the big six as possibly to be bracketed with them. 
Among these would be The Ford Motor Company Fund ($16,- 

500.000) ; The Rockefeller Brothers Fund ($59,700,000); The 
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching ($20,- 

600.000) ; The Carnegie Institution of Washington ($65,100,000); 
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace ($20,600,000). 

Of the big six, only Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Pew reported 
assets at market value. Consequently, we have good reason to as- 
sume that the combined value of the assets of the big six might be 
well in excess of $4,000,000,000. It is probable that The Ford 

• These six ate listed together because of size, not because of similarity of 
operation. The investigation by the Reece Committee disclosed no criticism 
whatsoever of the Kellogg, Duke, or Pew foundations. 


Foundation, for example, should have been listed at close to 
$3,000,000,000, instead of a mere $520,000,000. 

There is a powerful school of political scientists which contends 
that bigness, per se, is a danger to society. It maintains that the 
economic power of great corporations should be suppressed by 
dissolutions and break-ups. Whole libraries have been written 
about the alleged threat to the public welfare in the form of the 
growth of giant enterprises. Congressional hearings on the prob- 
lems of small business, on mergers and antitrust issues, and on 
proposals to apply discriminatory legislation against large corpo- 
rations, have filled tens of thousands of printed pages a year. 

Under the influence of the antibigness philosophy, the Supreme 
Court, in dealing with antitrust cases, has veered toward a posi- 
tion that bigness, in itself, constitutes a restraint on competition. 
There is thus a tendency to consider that bigness, in itself, when it 
is capable of corrective restraint, is sufficient justification for re- 
medial legislation, even when there is no actual evidence of unfair 
competition or of collusion. 

A subschool of the “antibigness” political scientist has recently 
found a new problem-of-bigness to attack. Many corporations 
which formerly engaged in only one activity have now seen the 
wisdom of diversification and have entered various, sometimes un- 
associated, industries. Some opponents of bigness now wish to 
prevent diversification, even when the collateral activities of a 
great corporation give it no preponderant or even commanding 
position in the collateral industries. Their basic objection is no 
longer “unfair competition” or “restraint of trade” but mere big- 
ness and the fear of the aggregate power which goes with bigness. 

There is a clear analogy between bigness in industry and big- 
ness in the world of foundations. Each of the great foundations 
can exercise influence in the field of ideas so powerful that it justi- 
fies a fear of mere bigness. The argument can be made, as it has 
been made in relation to Big Business, that it is not necessary 
to prove that the power reposing in bigness has actually been 
abused. It is enough to show that the power exists. 

Professor Harold D. JLasswell of Yale is one of the academi- 


dans upon whom foundation patronage has been bestowed 
lavishly. He is one of the influential "experts” in the social sci- 
ences on whom foundation managers have so often relied for the 
selection of projects and the allocation of funds. In 1956, his 
prestige, largely on the basis of his position in the foundation 
world, contributed to his election as president of the American 
Political Science Association. It seems fair to assume that his in- 
augural address, delivered in Washington in September 6, 1956, 
may represent the position of social scientists enjoying foundation 
support. Speaking of economic control Professor Lasswell asks; 

Shall we rely upon a 30-40-50 rule to guide public policy in 
regard to the permissible degree of market control per- 
mitted to private interests? (For example: When one in- 
terest has 30% control of output, shall it be subject to 
special regulations designed to nullify . the side-effects of 
power that go along with economic control? When one 
interest rises to 40% shall we put governmentally appointed 
trustees on the Board of Directors? At 50% shall govern- 
ment trustees predominate?) 

He says, further; 

The same approach — the search for rules of proportion — 
applies to every institutional and personality pattern in a 
body politic. What are the optimum proportions of com- 
munity resources to devote to elementary, intermediary, 
advanced and ultra-advanced education? To research and 
development in science and technology? 

The validity of the political theory which opposes bigness in 
business enterprises is, of course, subject to grave question. Such 
enterprises operate in a competitive economy and under an effec- 
tive system of counterweighing power. Business is subject to 
checks and balances by pressures from labor, from competitive or 
substitute goods and services, from government, and from the 
political action of many citizen pressure groups. If, however, there 
is any justice in opposing bigness in business enterprises, there is 


even more in fearing bigness among foundations. The generally 
accepted practice of matched grants multiplies the impact of foun- 
dation giving. This technique of fund raising results in a far- 
reaching Gleichschaltung of public charity— a general adoption of 
the policies of the large foundations which offer the matching. 

Foundations owe their existence to the public. It makes a sacri- 
fice to give foundations tax exemption, assuming that the public 
will, in turn, be properly rewarded for its generosity through an 
application of the tax-exempt funds to the public welfare. For this 
reason, if no other, foundations must have the approval of the 
public to carry on; the public, indeed, would be fully justified in 
applying legislative restrictions on foundation operations where 
there seemed to be danger to the public welfare. The problem of 
foundation bigness per se may thus arise seriously to concern the 
general public unless foundation managers become alert to the in- 
herent dangers of bigness by avoiding, in the future, the tech- 
niques of joint planning; of joint support of intermediary organi- 
zations which thus achieve commanding positions in the world of 
ideas; and of eliminating or destroying counterweighing competi- 
tion in the support of ideas. The conformity which these tech- 
niques foster is socially unsound and highly undesirable. It stems 
partly from the use of a common group of “experts’ 1 and a com- 
mon application of funds to the support of the intellectual fashions 
of the day instead of applying the venture-capital theory equita- 
bly by giving proportionately, at least, to the preservation of the 
values of the past. 


Related to the problem of bigness is that of the foundation created 
and maintained by an individual business enterprise. Such foun- 
dations are comparative newcomers on the American scene but 
are rapidly increasing in numbers. There are now perhaps two 
thousand of them. Their aggregate capital is very substantial. As 
a corporation is granted an annual income-tax deduction of up to 
five percent of its net income, for philanthropic donations, such 
corporate foundations could grow to immense importance in our 


society and could, indeed, even overshadow the individual-cre- 
ated foundations in the course of time. Limited by lack of time 
and funds, the Reece Committee made no attempt to study these 
corporate foundations. Nor have I collected any material regard- 
ing them. But any comprehensive study of foundations in their re- 
lation to our society would have to take corporate foundations into 

The corporate foundations have, so far, escaped the type of 
criticism leveled at some of the individual-created foundations be- 
cause they have generally avoided controversy and have confined 
themselves to direct grants and to objectives (often local) with 
which the public could not well quarrel. But several interesting 
criticisms of them have been made, which do merit consideration 
by thoughtful students of the general foundation problem. 

There is the basic concern of some regarding the operations of 
juridical persons in the field of charity, in this instance juridical 
persons created by juridical persons. That difficult and obscure 
problem, I shall leave to the philosophers and jurists. 

Two forms of criticism have appeared from within the corpora- 
tions which have created foundations. Stockholders have objected 
to the "dissipation” of profits through donations to a foundation 
which, they say, arc really the property of the owners of the busi- 
ness, the stockholders. Labor, on the other hand, has sometimes 
complained that, if the corporation is so affluent as to be able to 
create and maintain a foundation of its own, it could afford to pay 
higher wages. 

A third form of complaint comes from competitors, who assert 
the unfairness of enabling a great corporation, through the tax- 
deduction vehicle, to advertise itself and promote public rela- 
tions and, thus, to take unfair advantage of competitors. Com- 
plaints of this kind have been registered against the Ford Motor 
Company. On the other hand, a foundation can operate in reverse, 
in regard to public relations. There was a time when many people 
in the United States refused to buy Ford products because of the 
antics of the Ford Foundation-created Fund for the Republic and 
even for some of the acts of The Ford Foundation itself. 


A graver criticism lies in the fact that, while Federal laws pre- 
vent combinations in business in restraint of trade, it is possible 
for foundations to act in concert to the attainment of common ob- 
jectives. Such objectives might conceivably be political, in which 
event, combinations of huge foundations created by huge corpora- 
tions could constitute a potential highly dangerous to our society. 
It is to be hoped that those who manage the great corporations 
will be alert to this danger and carefully avoid it. 




Although the Cox Committee recognized that the responsibility 
of a foundation trustee was “onerous to the point that it would 
seriously interfere with the work of the average business man/’ it 
found it “understandable that the services of an outstanding man 
should be sought by more than one foundation.*’ Its only serious 
criticism of a concentration of trustee power was geographic. It 
expressed the opinion that a “wider geographical distribution 
would go far towards establishing greater public confidence in 
foundations and would dispel much of the distrust which shelters 
under the traditional fear of Wall Street.” Thus, the Cox Com- 
mittee completely missed the point. What mattered was not that 
foundation trustees were concentrated on the Eastern Seaboard 
but that a pattern of interlocking operations existed at various 
levels of management. The geographical location of the majority 
of foundation trustees was of small consequence. 

That interlocks among foundation boards existed was clear 
enough. F. Emerson Andrews, in his Philanthropic Foundations, 
mentions two complex cases as evidence of the national promi- 
nence of many foundation trustees. In one case, the foundation 
had 20 trustees who held a total of 113 positions as trustees or 
officers of other philanthropic organizations, or an average of 5.6 
each. The range of outside positions ran from o to 14. The Board 
of the other foundation which Mr. Andrews cited was composed 



of 14 trustees, holding a total of 85 outside philanthropic positions, 
or an average of 6 per trustee; the range being from o to 13. If, 
as the Cox Committee held, a foundation trustee's job was "oner- 
ous" to the point of "seriously interfering" with his business, one 
wonders how any man could simultaneously fill thirteen or four- 
teen philanthropic offices effectively and conscientiously. 

Overlapping of foundation administrators is an old story. In his 
foundation, John D. Rockefeller employed some of the same men 
to whom Andrew Carnegie had entrusted his endowments. Dean 
Rusk, speaking for the Rockefeller Foundation, explained that 
consultation among foundations arose "from the desire on the 
part of each one to use its funds to the best advantage.” He de- 
fended discussions among foundation officers as a desirable means 
of exchanging information, to avoid duplication of effort, and to 
permit funds to be used wisely. However, the intimate associations 
which Mr. Rusk lauds can be dangerous. They can operate to 
force our culture into a uniform pattern. It would be far better for 
society to face the occasional waste which lack of interfounda- 
tion planning might cause than to take the risk of losing a 
truly competitive intellectual climate. Indeed, there is similarity 
between Mr. Rusk's plea for cooperation among foundations and 
the arguments given for industrial cartels and for regulated com- 
petition — for that matter, with the rationale for a socialist planned 

The men who operate foundations do have power often greater 
than that of elected or appointed government officials. The law 
applying to public servants is very strict in defining conflicts of in- 
terest. They are held strictly to an exact loyalty. There are no simi- 
lar limitations applying to trustees or officers of foundations. They 
may support their pet causes. They may cause donations to be 
made to institutions or funds on whose directive boards they sit. 
They may be donors and recipients at the same time. They may 
favor their friends or relatives and pay salaries and fees without 
limitation. Hundreds of years ago, the Church introduced rules 
against nepotism. No such rules prevent those in control of foun- 


dations from using power to gain more power, through combina- 
tions with others, mutual endorsements and support, and the many 
subtle forms of collusion available to them under our foundation 

If there is need for clearing houses in educational, scientific, 
and public pursuits, that docs not justify a domination of these in- 
stitutions by foundations and their staffs. To continue the wide- 
spread practice of simultaneous directorships in grant-giving and 
grant-receiving institutions is against the public interest. Absten- 
tion from voting, where there is a conflict of interest, does not 
adequately protect the public. The very presence of a trustee or 
officer with dual allegiance can have an improper effect on the 
foundation's decisions. It seems fair to require individuals to 
choose whether they wish to operate on one side of the street or 
the other — as givers or receivers. Moreover, a switching back and 
forth, frequently observed, seems highly undesirable. In the inter- 
est of continuing a free market for ideas, the managements of 
granting and receiving institutions should be carefully separated 
and kept clear of any taint of conflict of interest. 

The effective interlock which exists in the foundation world 
finds expression in many ways, among them: 

1. Trustees serving on more than one tax-exempt organiza- 
tion, often both granting and receiving organizations; 

2 . Joint support and/or control by several foundations 
of fund-receiving institutions, particularly "clearing-house 
organizations" and scientific, educational, and public affairs 
councils or associations; 

3. Issuance of matched grants, or promises of grants with 
the proviso that funds are to be supplied only if and when 
others support the same project or cause; 

4. Service of foundation personnel, simultaneously or in 
short succession, on staffs of foundation-supported institu- 
tions; and 

5. Service of foundation officials (trustees or managers) 


on government advisory boards, in control of government 
policy or spending in fields identified with foundation phi- 

Their independent, uncontrolled financial power often enables 
foundations to exert a decisive influence on public affairs. They 
have a power comparable to political patronage. The propagan- 
dists effects of this patronage can often reach far beyond the im- 
mediate beneficiaries of foundation support. The emergence of 
dominating agencies in various fields of learning and teaching 
was a likely development. Foundations were originally created to 
support existing institutions and to undertake certain “operating” 
functions. Today, and all too frequently, new recipient organiza- 
tions are created by foundations, or with their subsidy, while 
needy and worthy existing institutions are ignored. The Ford 
Foundation in its early years created many subfunds for research 
and education which duplicated existing, similar organizations. In 
the twenties, several influential scientific and educational councils 
were set up jointly by cooperating foundations. 

De facto, almost all major foundations insist on approving the 
selection of personnel in the recipient organizations. They wish to 
know who will spend their grants or benefit from them. An appar- 
ent donation is often, in reality, a disguised financing of a founda- 
tion department. It is attached to an outside institution or organi- 
zation, but little is left to it to do except bookkeeping and related 
administrative functions, Universities, hospitals, institutes and 
learned societies sometimes supply nothing but their name labels 
affixed to what is actually a pet project of foundation managers. In 
effect, everything from the budget to the choice of ad hoc ap- 
pointed professors or researchers is controlled and decided by 
foundation officials. 

The concentration of power has measurable influence on our 
cultural life. The Social Science Research Council once published 
a study of its own granting activities. This clearly showed a prefer-* 
ence for five of the largest universities in the United States. Simi- 
larly, the National Science Foundation, an agency of the U.S. 


Government, found that the same foundation-sponsored institu- 
tions had received the major share of hundreds of million dollars 
of government contracts. Such a concentration of private support 
by foundations and public support through government agencies 
is distinctly to the detriment of higher education in our country. 
Favoritism for institutions and for scholars of a few such institu- 
tions tends to cause a migration of talent from the neglected to the 
pampered universities and gives a few schools of higher learning 
an £lite character, at the same time reducing both the comparative 
prestige and the potential of the others. 


Americans have never liked monopoly or a concentration of power 
in private hands, free of public control. 'When they have found it 
in the business world, they have legislated against it. They are not 
likely to be pleased to find a quasi-monopoly operating in intel- 
lectual areas which are not mere "ivory tower" but influence our 
society very materially, 

A system of interlocks among major foundations and associated 
organizations has long existed in social-science research and edu- 
cation. No group of men sat down deliberately to plan this thing 
over-all. It just grew into being, but it is none the less dangerous 
as a concentration of power. It came about largely through the use 
of intermediary organizations to which foundations could donate 
wholesale funds for retailing grants. The system was so convenient 
and intriguing that clearing houses were brought into existence 
further to amplify this system of delegation. 

What seemed to justify the use of these intermediaries was the 
belief that they would bring about greater efficiency. In a way, 
they did. Each specialized in some field of research or of social ac- 
tion and often could act with more detailed understanding than 
could the contributing foundations which scattered their interest 
over large areas. On the other hand, as Professor David N. Rowe 
testified before the Reece Committee, efficiency is by no means the 
most desirable factor in research. Moreover, by using the conven* 


ience of intermediaries, to delegate power and thus to escape the 
arduous duty of detailed programming and selection, the trustees 
of a contributing foundation removed themselves further from the 
ultimate results of their expenditures, and were less and less able 
to follow and check the application of their funds. 

In large industrial enterprises and in government, the delega- 
tion of authority is an essential management device. The proper 
use of the same instrument in the area of ideas has distinct and 
narrow limitations. In industry and government, the delegation is 
one of operational responsibility within the framework of a given 
value system, the policy of the organization. That is quite differ- 
ent from the form of delegation all too often employed in founda- 
tions. Here, in effect, the delegation is of actual policy decisions. 
These policy decisions may deeply effect our society. 

No better example of this could be found than the case of The 
Institute of Pacific Relations, to which I have referred, used by 
The Rockefeller Foundation, The Carnegie Corporation, The Car- 
negie Endowment for International Peace, and others as a distrib- 
uting agent. The Institute became the specialist in the Far East. 
The tragedy was that it also became a specialist in promoting the 
Communist cause in Asia, succeeding so well in this endeavor be- 
cause of the vast financial support given to it by the major founda- 

The donating foundations sought to absolve themselves of re- 
sponsibility for what resulted. But, as Professor Rowe stated in his 
testimony,* the granting foundations cannot escape responsibility 
for what their agents have done. They granted these agents great 
power, a power immensely enlarged when foundations, acting in 
concert, supplied such substantial financing that the intermediary 
agent became a dominating force in its specialized area. 

The potential power of the major intermediaries was illustrated 
by Professor Rowe in his testimony. I had asked him whether the 
intermediary system did not operate against the competitive fac- 
tor which is intrinsic in our American way of life. He testified:! 

* Report , p. Go. 

•\ Ibid., p. 59. 


There is no question but what an organization like The 
Social Science Research Council has a tremendous amount 
of power. This power which it exerts, it exerts very heavily 
on educational institutions and their personnel because when 
you get down to it, who is it that does research in social 
science? It is educational institutions, because they have the 
faculties in the various fields, like political science, econom- 
ics, anthropology, sociology, geography and so on. That is 
where the people are.*** 

This, therefore, means that there is a tremendous respon- 
sibility here to apportion their awards in a just way — in such 
a way as takes into account the differences of approach and 
the differences of opinion in these fields; the theoretical 
differences from one school to another. The possibility exists 
that at all times in any of these organizations that the 
people in charge thereof become convinced that there is one 
way to do a job in the social science field , and that only this 
zoay will get their support . If and when that time comes — 
I don't know whether it is here or ever will come — then 
you ivill have a combination in restraint of trade xoithin 
the limits of public acceptability that may have very del - 
eterious effects upon our intellectual community . [Emphasis 


The report of the Reece Committee described the ‘‘network or 
cartel” in the social sciences* as having five components. The first 
is a group of foundations, composed of the various Rockefeller 
and Carnegie foundations, The Ford Foundation (referred to as 
“a late comer but already partially integrated”), The Common- 
wealth Fund, The Maurice and Laura Falk Foundation, The Rus- 
sell Sage Foundation, and others. 

The second component consists of the “intermediaries” or 
•‘clearing houses,” such as: 

•ibid., pp. 45*47, 


The American Council of Learned Societies 
The American Council on Education 
The National Academy of Sciences 
The National Education Association 
The National Research Council 
The National Science Foundation 
The Social Science Research Council 
The Progressive Education Association 
The John Dewey Society 
The Institute of Pacific Relations 
The League for Industrial Democracy 
The American Labor Education Service 

The learned societies in the several “social sciences" were listed 
as the third component. 

The fourth consists of the learned journals in these areas. 

The fifth was “certain individuals in strategic positions, such as 
certain professors in the institutions which receive the preference 
of the combine.” 

The report proceeded: 

The patterns of interlocking positions of power may take 
various shapes. The following are the most frequent ones: 

(1) Trustees or employed executives are successively or 
simultaneously trustees and executives of several founda- 

(2) Trustees or executives serve successively or simul- 
taneously as officers of other tax exempt organizations re- 
ceiving grants and/or retailing the wholesale grants from 
their own foundations. 

(3) Trustees or executives accept appointments to posi- 
tions of power in control of education and/or charity so as 
to multiply their influence beyond the budgetary powers 
of their foundation resources. 

(4) Foundations jointly underwrite major projects, thus 
arriving at a condition of coordination restraining compe- 


(5) Foundations jointly create and support centralized 
coordinating agencies that operate as instruments of control 
by claiming supreme authority in a field of education, 
science, the arts, etc. without any resemblance of democratic 
representation of the professionals in the management of 
these agencies. 

(6) Rather than distribute money without strings at- 
tached, foundations favor projects of their own and supply 
the recipient institutions not only with the program, but 
also with the staff and the detailed operations budget so 
that the project is actually under control of the foundation, 
while professionally benefiting from the prestige of the 
recipient institution. The choice of professors often is one 
by the foundation and not one by the university. Founda- 
tion employees frequently switch from work in the founda- 
tion, or in the councils supported by the foundation, to work 
on sponsored projects and in professional organizations sup- 
ported by their funds. They become most influential in the 
professional organizations, are elected to presidencies and 
generally rule the research industry. 

As an example of interlocking directorates, the report cited the 
case of The Rand Corporation. This is a corporation in the nature 
of a foundation, which plays a very important part in government 
research. It would warrant special attention in connection with 
any study of the extent to which foundation interlocks have influ- 
enced government. Among the trustees and officers of The Rand 
Corporation were found the following who had material connec- 
tions with other foundations: 

Charles Dollard (trustee) Carnegie Corporation 

L. A. Dudbridge (trustee) Carnegie Endowment 

National Science 

H. Rowan Gaither, Jr. 

(trustee) Ford Foundation 


Philip E. Mosely (trustee) 
Harvey S. Mudd (trustee) 

Frederick F. Stephan (trustee) 
Clyde Williams (tfustee) 

Hans Speier (officer) 

Ford Foundation 
Rockefeller Foundation 
Mudd Foundation 
Santa Anita Foundation 
American Heritage 

Rockefeller Foundation 
Batelle Memorial 

(Ford) Behavioral Science 

This example of interlocking is specially interesting because the 
Chairman of this semi-governmental organization, The Rand Cor- 
poration, was, at the same time, president of The Ford Founda- 
tion, which granted it one million dollars in 1952 alone. 

The following list of social-science consultants serving the Re- 
search and Development Board of the Defense Department at one 
time (1953) illustrates the frequency with which foundation exec- 
utives are appointed as “experts” controlling the expenditure of 
government funds in research: 

Leland De Vinney 
John W. Lardner 
Pendleton Herring 

William C. Menninger 
J. A. Perkins 
Don K. Price 

Rockefeller Foundation 
Carnegie Corporation 
Social Science Research Council 
(formerly, Carnegie 

Menninger Foundation 
Carnegie Corporation 
Ford Foundation 

Closely allied to the practice of interlocking directorates (and 
.interlocking advisers and executives) is the practice of the major 
foundations of favoring a limited number of institutions and indi- 
viduals. Mr. Andrews, in his Philanthropic Foundations , defends 
this practice by saying that "adequate research facilities and the 
ablest personnel are largely concentrated in these places.” If this 


were so, then the foundations have contributed to an unbalanced 
condition, and the country would be better off if they reversed 
themselves and sought to bring up the standards of neglected in- 
stitutions by being more generous to them in their research allot- 

Mr. Andrews's explanation does not seem persuasive. The most 
favored institutions (Harvard, the University of Chicago, Colum- 
bia, California, Yale, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and MIT seem 
usually to head the list) are not in a class by themselves. I am not 
sure what Mr. Andrews refers to in mentioning "adequate re- 
search facilities"; whatever equipment may be needed for social- 
science research could be rented readily enough. But Mr. An- 
drews's contention about "the ablest personnel" would be hotly 
contested by many informed academicians, among them Professor 
Colegrove who, in his testimony before the Reece Committee, 
pleaded for a wider, as well as a greater, use of our colleges and 
universities. He said there is "a wealth of brains, a wealth of com- 
petence, in our small colleges and universities, which does not 
have its share in research grant^ at the present time."* 

The preference extends not: only to selected institutions them- 
selves but even to graduate students in them. For example, the 
Social Science Research Council, in 1952, reported that 856 gradu- 
ate students working for a degree had received Council grants. A 
total of 47.6 percent went to students at Columbia, Harvard, and 
the University of Chicago. Add Yale, the University of California, 
and Wisconsin, and students at these six received an aggregate of 
63.4 percent of the giants. Students at a total of 16 institutions re- 
ceived 89.1 percent of the grants, while 93 others received, among 
them, only 10.9 percent; and the more than a thousand remaining 
institutions received none. If any Catholic institutions were repre- 
sented in the SSRC list, I missed them. 


"Foundations," said the Reece Committee report, "becoming more 
numerous every day, may some day control our whole intellectual 
•/61U, p. 80. 


and cultural life — and with it the future of this country. The im- 
pact of this interlock, this intellectual cartel, has already been felt 
deeply in education and in the political scene/’ 

The report then discussed The Social Science Research Coun- 
cil,* taking it as an example of the “association or individual foun- 
dations with one of the intermediary or executive foundations” — 
another form of interlock. Among the foundations which have 
supported this distributing agent are these: 

The Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial 
The Russell Sage Foundation 
The Carnegie Corporation 
The Commonwealth Fund 
The Julius Rosenwald Fund 

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 
The Maurice and Laura Falk Foundation 
The General Education Board (Rockefeller) 

The Grant Foundation 

The Scripps Foundation for Research in Population Prob- 

The American Philosophical Society 

The John and Mary R. Markle Foundation 

The Ford Foundation 

The Twentieth Century Fund 

The East European Fund 

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund 

With support such as this, and even government support, it is 
no wonder that The Social Science Research Council has become 
the greatest power in social-science research. Its 1929-1930 annual 
report disclosed some pride in the fact that it has been closely in- 
terlocked in an important network: 

With our sister councils, the National Research Council, f 
the American Council of Learned Societies, and the 

• Ibid., p. 47 et seq. 
f Active in the natural sciences. 


American Council on Education, cooperation remains 
good and becomes increasingly close and significant. There 
are interlocking members and much personal contact oE the 
respective staffs. (Emphasis supplied.) 

Despite many such acknowledgments as this, representatives of 
the foundations and their intermediaries have firmly denied the 
existence of an interlock. These denials cannot be sincere. There is 
a mass of evidence to indicate the close working-together to which 
the SSRC report quoted above alluded. Professor Colgrove testi- 
fied that there was a tendency by the clearing houses to move to 
Washington and to cause their “constituent” societies to move 
there also. This concentration in one city improves efficiency — 
efficiency in a “cooperation” which goes far beyond the ordinary 
connotations of that term. Professor Colegrove said: 

* * * There is more day-to-day conversation and consulta- 
tion between the officers of the professional societies and the 
officers of the operating societies, like the American Council 
of Learned Societies, and the officers of the foundations. 

I think the officers of the professional societies are extremely 
good listeners and follow pretty carefully the advice that 
is given them by the foundation officers. 

Professor Colegrove also said that there had been a conscious con- 
centration of research direction through the clearing-house or- 

The intermediaries are not merely distributive agencies in the 
simple sense. They assume a directive function. This is indicated 
by a statement by Messrs. Donald Young and Paul Webbink in 
Vol. i, issue No. 3 of ItemSj a publication of The Social Science 
Research Council, in which these gentlemen present the role of 
the SSRC in improving research: 

The particular role of the Council, however, is that of a 
central agency to promote the unity of effort in attacking 
social problems which is required to assure maximum re- 

♦ Ibid.j pp. 47-48. 


turns from the work of a multitude of individual social 
scientists and of independent private and public institutions. 

They continued that the Council does not “attempt to operate as 
a coordinating agency in any compulsive sense." However, its 
very availability and the wide support given to it by major foun- 
dations have actually given the SSRC a control over research in 
the social sciences which is, said the report of the Reece Com- 
mittee, “in its effective use, undoubtedly compulsive." 

Dr. Pendleton Herring, president of The Social Science Re- 
search Council, proudly quoted, in the September 1950 issue of 
Items , this statement of The Ford Foundation: 

The Social Science Research Council has been included in 
this program because it is the instrumentality most used 
by individual scholars, universities and research organiza- 
tions for interchange of information, planning and other 
cooperative functions in the fields described. * * * 

The Ford grant was not, therefore, to be used for the support of 
more independent research projects, but to help pay the SSRC 
overhead to "enhance the service it performs for other organiza- 
tions and scholars," 

The Reece Committee report described this sociographic pat- 
tern of operations in the SSRC: 

Constituent societies: 

Represented at various other nationwide "councils." 
Financial support : 

By closely cooperating foundations, which themselves in- 
terlock through directorates. 

Supported scholarly activity: 

Concentration on graduates of a few major institutions, 
which also supply most of the directors of the Council, 
who since a change of by-laws are chosen by the Council 
board, not any longer freely elected by constituent as- 

Influence of government spending for research: 


SSRC or similar foundations-supported groups decisively 
influence National Science Foundation policy and Defence 
Department spending on research via its officers serving 
as consultants and board members.”* 

The Committee was impressed with the peculiar form of man- 
agement within The Social Science Research Council. As is the 
case in foundations generally, the management is self-perpetuat- 
ing. The SSRC, however, purports to represent seven of the indi- 
vidual social-science disciplines through their respective profes- 
sional societies. Its stationery gives this impression, which is mis- 
leading. These societies are not actually members of the SSRC. 
They are permitted to elect directors to the SSRC Board, but only 
from among panels. of candidates nominated by the SSRC itself. 

This practice cannot help but produce conformity to the ideas 
of the clique which rules The Social Science Research Council. It 
was introduced in substitution for an earlier system of permitting 
the professional associations to elect representatives of their choos- 
ing. They are no longer permitted to select such as they believe 
competent and wise, but only from among those nominated by the 

The Reece Committee held this to be a rather undemo- 
cratic procedure, to say the least. It pointed out that the total- 
itarian character of this organization, so important in social-science 
research in the United States, is increased by the fact that its 
“members” are not the societies which it purports to represent but 
its former directors. One of these directors explained that the 
change in the election rules arose from the need to exclude “old- 
fashioned” social scientists who would oppose the preference for 
statistical and empirical projects. 

It is easy to see, in this peculiar organization of the SSRC, an op- 
eration of the “£lite” concept. If the assumedly “constituent” pro- 
fessional societies were permitted freely to elect the management 
of this centralizing organization, those who control it might lose 
their power. But they are the “£lite.” They want on their board a 

• Ibid ., p. 48. 


clear majority, or even a unanimity, of social scientists who agree 
with their theses. Do they not know better than others, better even 
than the membership of the professional societies of social-science 
professors, what is good for the countryl It is not a pleasant con- 
cept under American traditions. 

The Reece Committee report found that 

the SSRC has in the past gained leadership, among other 
reasons, because it successfully created the impression of 
representing the majority of all social scientists in America. 

In a democratic sense, at least, the SSRC did not represent Ameri- 
can scholarship in the social sciences. It thrived, however, by giv- 
ing the impression that it did. Its power grew as the impression 
mounted and as it became a constant beneficiary of major foun- 

“The power of the SSRC,” said the Reece Committee report, 
“seems to be used to effect control of the field of social sciences.”* 
This statement was not lightly made. "There is evidence," said the 
Committee, “that professional appointments all over the United 
States are influenced by SSRC blessing." 

One example is sufficiently powerful to justify the statement. 
The 1933-1934 report of the National Planning Board was actually 
prepared by a committee of The Social Science Research Council. 
It stated: 

The Council [the SS.RC] has been concerned chiefly with 
the determination of the groups and persons with whom 
special types of research should be placed. 

Keeping in mind that this organization, The Social Science Re- 
search Council, is supported by a group of major foundations, the 
hazards involved are significant. If it has the function which was 
described, of deciding what groups and individuals should be 
used for various research projects, it has a control power which 
carries with it enormous danger. 

The Committee suggested a special investigation of the extent 

• Ibid,, p. 50. 


to which The Social Science Research Council and organizations 
associated with it control book reviews and the literary production 
— journals, textbooks and other publications — of social scientists. 
It is a characteristic of the American world o£ scholarship that 
academicians are rated largely on their publications, and the test 
is often quantitative rather than qualitative. Whether or not a 
social scientist can procure publication of a paper has a lot to do 
with his advancement in his career. Similarly, the nature of the 
reviews given to his paper may be of vital importance. 

Professor Rowe,* testifying regarding the influence of founda- 
tions in educational institutions, said: 

* * * you have to realize * # * that advancement and pro- 
motion and survival in the academic field depend upon re- 
search and the results and the publication thereof. Here you 
have, you see, outside organizations influencing the course 
of the careers of personnel in universities through their con- 
trol of funds which can liberate these people from teaching 
duties, for example, and making it possible for them to pub- 
lish more than their competitors. 

If, then, control over an academic journal is concentrated in a 
few hands, it would be easy enough to impose concepts and phi- 
losophies on a generation of scholars, and upon school teachers 
and textbook writers. In more than one instance this has undoubt- 
edly happened. Such control may take the form of denying space 
to a nonconformist. It may also influence commercial publishers 
via the expert readers to whom books are submitted before pub- 
lication. It is very likely that these experts would be selected from 
those favored by the journal. Publishers may be reluctant to pub- 
lish a nonconformist’s book because the conformists, articulate 
and welcomed in the pages of a professional journal, may pan it 
with unfavorable reviews or freeze it out of circulation by with- 
holding reviews in the controlled learned journals and in book- 
review sections. The controlling group has the power forcefully to 
recommend books for purchase in public and school libraries and 

• Ibid., p. 50. 


to advocate the use or rejection o£ selected textbooks. All this can 
add up to conformity. Instead of supporting such power, founda- 
tions bear the duty to exercise the greatest care, lest their funds be 
used for such ends of thought control. 

There are other groups powerful in the social sciences besides 
The Social Science Research Council — The (Ford) Behavioral Sci- 
ence Fund, The Twentieth Century Fund, The American Acad- 
emy of Political and Social Sciences, and others — but, as the Reece 
Committee pointed out, “with almost all of them there exist per- 
sonal and organizational ties and cross connections via supporting 
foundations.’' There is, in fact, a similarity of approach among 
these groups. They all favor the “liberal” point of view. It is possi- 
ble that this could be mere coincidence, but it is extremely un- 

President Grayson Kirk of Columbia University, in an address 
of May 31, 1954, wisely asserted that we “must maintain the 
greatest possible opportunities for the free clash of opinions on all 
subjects, trusting to the innate good judgment of men and women 
to reach decisions that are beneficial to society.” Anything in the 
nature of a concentration of power or an interlocking is pregnant 
with the possibility of coercive influence. 

The Reece Committee was shocked to find that one so important 
in the foundation world as Charles Dollard, then president of the 
powerful Carnegie Corporation, had contributed an article to the 
Social Science Research Council's publication, Items, in which, 
referring to mistakes in poll taking and in the Kinsey research, he 
made this statement: 

The third strategic move which I would suggest is that 
social science initiate a more rigorous system of internal 
policing .* 

That social scientists financed by foundations may have per- 
formed sloppy work is apparent enough, but the Reece Committee 
found the concept of “policing” terrifying. Who would do the po- 

• Ibid p. 51. 


licing? The Social Science Research Council? Some board of cen- 

Efficiency might be increased by a system of "policing.” But it 
would be at the cost of freedom, so precious in academic and in- 
tellectual fields. Researchers might easily be squeezed into a com- 
mon mold. “Few/* said the Reece Committee report, "could risk 
criticizing, few academicians at least. There would emerge what 
has been called a ‘Gresham’s Law in the field of professorships in 
the social sciences/ ” 

Whatever reasons may have been in the minds of those who 
created them, the "cartel bureaus” have, to all practical purposes, 
assumed the functions of accrediting agencies. The growing tend- 
ency toward Gleichschaltung (elimination of nonconformism) in 
our schools and professional societies is exhibited by the current 
preference for "projects.” Money is more easily obtainable today 
for "projects” chosen by foundation boards than for general 
purposes with no strings attached. The school administrator 
approaching a foundation, hat in hand, and eager to propose a 
project which conforms to the known leanings of the foundation 
executives, is a sad product of our age. No longer does the scholar 
carry the initiative. He is degraded to a recipient of alms handed 
out by an almoner who is no longer responsible to the prince. 

Power is often exerted by foundations to promote projects, 
rather than to support institutions, because of the desire of man- 
agers to do business in public, to publicize themselves and their 

The Reece Committee report ended its discussion of The Social 
Science Research Council by admitting that this organization, like 
others within the "concentration of power” or interlock in the so- 
cial sciences, can "point to admirable and valuable work which 
they have done.” These organizations have a great deal to their 
credit. But they have also exercised control and a restrictive influ- 
ence on scholarship in many ways. Moreover, they have become a 
power the existence of which, "dealing with public trust funds,” 
seemed to the Committee "to involve at least a potential danger 


or risk, however benevolently to date its relative despotism may 
have acted/’ # 


The American Council on Education is an intermediary to which 
the Reece Committee also gave special attention/}- It is a council 
of national education associations, financed by membership dues, 
by government contracts, by heavy contributions from major 
foundations, and by donations of associated organizations. 
Among its supporters have been: 

The General Education Board (Rockefeller) 

The Carnegie Corporation 

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 

The Rockefeller Foundation 

The Ford Fund for Adult Education 

The Alfred P. Sloan Fund 

The Payne Fund 

B'nai B'rith 

The Edward W. Hazen Foundation 

The Grant Foundation 

The Ellis L. Phillips Foundation 

I have used the term “clearing house/' The American Council 
on Education has called itself that in a pamphlet issued in July 

More specifically, the Council has been a clearing house for 
the exchange of information and opinion; it has conducted 
many scientific inquiries and investigations into specific ed- 
ucational problems and has sought to enlist appropriate 
agencies for the solution of such problems; it has stimulated 
experimental activities by institutions and groups of institu- 
tions; it has kept in constant touch with pending legislation 

•Ibid., p. 51. 

’flbid., p. 52 etseq. 

X U A Brief Statement of the History and Activities of the American Council 
on Education 


affecting educational matters; it has pioneered in method- 
ology that has become standard practice on a national 
basis * * *; it has acted as liaison agency between the 
educational institutions of the country and the federal gov- 
ernment and has undertaken many significant projects at 
the request of the Army, Navy and State Departments 
and other governmental agencies; and * * * it has made 
available to educators and the general public widely used 
handbooks, informational reports, and many volumes of 
critical analysis of social and educational problems, 

The same pamphlet reports on the Council's Research Policy 
Committee as follows: 

Established 1952 to study the interrelationships of spon- 
sored research from the viewpoints of federal agencies, 
industries , and foundations , sponsoring such research, and 
the effect on institutions doing the research . This latter 
angle involves the distribution of grants among institutions 
and the concentration of research in fields at the expense of 
other fields and the distortion of the institutional picture as 
a whole . The magnitude of the problem is shown by the 
fact that 20 or more federal agencies are currently sub- 
sidizing more than $150,000,000 worth of research a year; 
industrial and business concerns and private foundations 
also sponsor research. 

The numerous "special interests” involved may approach 
the same problems in different ways and come up with dif- 
ferent solutions. It is the aim of this Council committee — • 
composed of college presidents, vice-presidents for research, 
business officers, and faculty members directly engaged in 
sponsored research projects — to attempt to formulate a pol- 
icy for the national level based on cooperative relationships . 
(Emphasis supplied.) 

Thus, this Council, like The Social Science Research Council, is 
an interrelating or coordinating agency, which establishes policy 


and acts as a distributing agent for foundations whose business is 
grant making, along planned and integrated lines. Again, we have 
the emphasis on “efficiency,” as though this were the most desir- 
able objective in research. The Reece Committee report com- 
mented 1 *: 

As Professor Rowe and others have said: it would seem far 
better to lose efficiency and give individuals of quality the 
opportunity to go in their own respective directions unham- 
pered by any group control, direction or pressure. 

However laudable much or most of its work may have been, 
the Council has certainly been one of the media through 
which foundation funds have been used to effect consider- 
able control or influence over education in the United States. 
Some may argue that this control or influence has been 
wholly good — were this so, we would still believe that the 
power of great foundations to affect educational policies 
and practices is one which should concern the public. By 
the same token, we believe that “clearing house" organiza- 
tions, while they may serve a purpose in the direction of 
efficiency, are of questionable desirability when interlocked 
financially or by personnel with these foundations. The 
aggregate power involved in Such a concentration gives us 
concern . 


The clearing-house organizations themselves are interconnected, 
forming veritable associations of associations, and councils of as- 
sociations and councils. Three times removed from their constitu- 
ent individuals and institutions, these express the desire so preva- 
lent among foundation executives to avoid duplication and to 
bring in what they conceive to be order. 

There is, for example, a Conference Board of Associated Re- 
search Councils, through which The Social Science Research 


Council, The American Council on Education, The National Re- 
search Council, and The American Council of Learned Societies 
get together “to facilitate action on matters of common concern," 
continuing "earlier informal consultations of the executives of the 
Councils.” To whatever types of action this conference of councils 
may be limited by its documents of organization, its meetings 
nevertheless afford an opportunity for coordinated planning 
through conferences of the respective executives. 

A council to finance higher education has been created jointly 
by the Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, and Sloan foundations, each 
of which contributes $60,000 to it annually for a period of three 
years. This money does not go to the direct support of higher edu- 
cation. It pays for a staff under Mr. Wilson Compton which 
spends its time advising industrial corporations and other donors 
how to give money, and assisting institutions in their fund-raising 
campaigns. These foundations have thus, in combination, created 
another power position of influence in education. 

Periodical meetings of foundation executives now take place in 
New York, informal in nature, perhaps, for the purpose of dis- 
cussing policy problems and determining common action. 

De Tocqueville, in one of his famous observations about democ- 
racy in America, reported with some amazement the propensity of 
this nation for the formation of voluntary associations for common 
ends. But he saw the working of democratic forces in this expres- 
sion of freedom of assembly. The competing power of groups pro- 
duced an effective method of checks and balances, preventing a 
domination of the people by autocratic forces. The more recent 
urge for nationwide, hierarchic, so-called clearing houses, fos- 
tered by foundations, was not foreseen by De Tocqueville. These 
are in reality instruments for ideological and political GleichschaU 
tung . Is the difference essential, or only a matter of degree, be- 
tween an organization of scientists or authors subject to the mone- 
tary control of power cliques and the so-called associations and 
academies operating in totalitarian countries? With good luck, an 
American scientist may find an independent publisher and eman- 


cipate himself from the clique’s financial control. But such cases 
are rare and confined to men of great courage and of contempt for 
economic rewards. 

The United States government now spends far more money on 
social-science research than do all the foundations combined. 
This might constitute a counterforce to the influence of the foun- 
dation complex were it not for the fact that, to a great extent, the 
same persons who control or expend the funds of the complex in 
the social-science fields also direct or advise on the expenditures 
of the Federal government in these areas. It is not surprising, 
therefore, that government agencies operating in social-science 
areas have exhibited the same preferences and idiosyncrasies as 
has the foundation complex. It is a case of Tweedledee and 
Tweedledum — or, to put it another way, a condition of constant 
exchange of men and ideas between the complex and government. 


Almost all the executives within the foundation complex whom I 
have met have been exceptionally pleasant and highly intelligent 
men. My criticism of them is confined to their almost universally 
common characteristic of permitting their social, intellectual and, 
principally, their political predilections to affect their work as ad- 
ministrators of public trusts. 

When it has been called to their attention that an amazing 
amount of conformity and uniformity exists in the operations of 
the major foundation complex, apologists for these organizations 
have sometimes suggested that this is not because of the prefer- 
ences of the foundation managers. They say that this phenomenon 
stems from a prevailing bias in favor of what is called “liberalism.” 
These apologists tell us that the foundation executives follow the 
fashions of the times; in this manner, they “play safe.” That may 
be so. It is difficult, in a situation such as this, to establish a cause- 
and-effect relationship with accuracy — to determine the extent to 
which foundation managers have followed or created trends. We 
do know, however, that the existing conformism within the social 
sciences has been nurtured abundantly by foundation support. 


Foundation executives often pay lip service to nonconformism, 
and pride themselves on their contribution to “new" and “un- 
orthodox" ideas. But the cooperation among the managers within 
the foundation complex does not favor the nonconformist. On the 
contrary, it has produced an excess of mediocre, routine work. 
Nor is much of what these managers point to as “new" and “un- 
orthodox" really so. Most of it may have been “new" or “unortho- 
dox" twenty or thirty years ago. These amazingly like-minded 
men have contributed substantially to converting into current or- 
thodoxy what were revolutionary ideas during the twenties, They 
have supported for so long what they euphemistically call the 
“New Deal" (but what is really a modified form of socialism) 
that they are no longer capable of recognizing that other concepts 
of value may be held bona fide by thinkers and scholars. 

What these professionals choose to call themselves is of no con- 
sequence. One maintained to me that he was a “conservative." Yet 
he is one of the most radical-minded of the foundation managers. 

A stereotyped bureaucracy has developed among the major 
foundations and their satellite organizations. It has common ideas 
both as to concepts of responsibility and business affairs. The 
ideas and concepts of this bureaucracy are based heavily on the 
assumption of a cultural lag — the need to adjust law, values, and 
human affairs in general to a tempo dictated by our rapid techno- 
logical progress. The adoption of this interpretation of society, 
somewhat related to Marx’s economic determinism, impels its be- 
lievers to strive for permanent and continual revolution, a posi- 
tion not too easy to differentiate from the materialistic concept of 

They have become almost a guild, the bureaucrats of the foun- 
dation complex. As the Reece Committee report said*: 

The professionals, who exert so important an influence 
upon thought and public opinion in the United States, 
form a sort of professional class, an £lite of management of 
the vast public funds available to their will. They can 

•P- 37- 


scarcely avoid getting an exaggerated idea of their own 
importance and becoming preoccupied with holding and 
enlarging their roles. 

Clearly enough, foundation executives are entitled to their po- 
litical opinions as private individuals. If they were not acting in 
concert, one could even excuse the impact of such political opin- 
ions on their work as individuals within foundations. What is 
wrong is permitting any Gleichschaltung or even the appearance 
of it. Anything in the nature of a cartel-like coordination in educa- 
tion and in such vital fields as foreign relations and the social- 
science studies tends to reduce competition and, through a form 
of collusion, to endanger the freedom of our intellectual and pub- 
lic life. 

The emergence of this special class in our society , endowed 
with immense poxoers of thought control ' , is a factor which must be 
taken into account in judging the merits of contemporary founda- 
tion operations . The concentration of power, or interlock, which 
has developed in foundation-supported social-science research 
and social-science education is largely the result of a capture of 
the integrated organizations by like-minded men . The plain, sim- 
ple fact is that the so-called (t liberal n movement in the United 
States has captured most of the major foundations and has done so 
chiefly through the professional administrator class, which has not 
hesitated to use these great public trust funds to political ends and 
with bias. 




In Chicago in 1949 a group of social scientists adopted the term 
“behavioral sciences.” They gave their reasons for selecting the 
new term: “first, because its neutral character made it acceptable 
to both social and biological scientists and, second, because we 
foresaw a possibility of some day seeking to obtain financial sup- 
port from persons who might confound social science with social- 
ism.” That confusion has existed in some minds is evidenced by 
one legislator who said that social science was the pursuit of long- 
haired men and short-haired women. 

While such confusion may be amusing, foundation support in 
the social sciences does take on special and serious importance. 
Though much of the research and teaching in these disciplines 
may have no relationship whatsoever to politics, legislation, or 
even to public affairs, a large and vociferous sector of the social 
scientists actively seeks to redesign our government and our public 
life. It is difficult to understand how tax-exempt funds can prop- 
erly be used to support the idiosyncrasies of these self-appointed 
reformers. In the face of the weakness of the controlling tax law 
which I have pointed out, it behooves foundations to exercise care 
and restraint. 

Here is an illustration of aggressive political-minded ness from 
the words of one of the leaders of the foundation-supported social- 
science world, Professor Harold D. Lasswell, in his inaugural ad- 
dress as president of the American Political Science Association: 



One of our professional responsibilities is to expedite the 
development of more perfect institutions specialized to con- 
tinual self-observation on a global scale * * * originating 
policy alternatives by means of which goal values can be 

Professor Lasswell continues: 

Compared with an entire university, which has become a 
non-communicating aggregate of experts, each department 
of political science can be a true center of integration where 
normative and descriptive frames of reference are simulta- 
neously and continuously applied to the consideration of the 
policy issues confronting the body politic as a whole over 
the near, middle and distant ranges of time. The profession 
is advantageously situated therefore to take the lead in a 
configurative approach to the decision process in society. 
Where it plays this part, political science is the policy 
science, par excellence . * * * Part of our role, as the ven- 
erable metaphor has it, is scanning the horizon of the un- 
folding future with a view to defining in advance the prob- 
able import of what is foreseeable for the navigators of the 
Ship of State. It is our responsibility to flagellate our minds 
toward creativity, toward bringing into the stream of 
emerging events conceptions of future strategy that, if 
adopted, will increase the probability that ideal aspirations 
will be more approximately realized. 

If these involved phrases leave any doubt about the political in- 
tention of social scientists of Professor Lasswell’s mind, their ac- 
tions in association with government do not. Many of these schol- 
ars, including Professor Lasswell, serve as "experts” and advisers 
to numerous governmental agencies. Social scientists may be said 
to have come to constitute a fourth major branch of government. 
They are the consultants of government, the planners, and the 
designers of governmental theory and practice. They are free 
from the checks and balances to which the other three branches of 


government (legislative, executive, and judicial) are subject. They 
have attained their influence and their position in government 
mainly through foundation support; and this support, in the 
past, has been chiefly given to persons, institutions, and ideas of a 
progressive-liberal, if not Socialist, coloring. 

In a pamphlet entitled “Science as Morality/’ published by the 
Humanist Press in 1953, George Simpson adds his voice to the 
growing criticism of the peculiar fashions, the current orthodox- 
ies, in the social sciences. He criticizes the retreat from morality 
and the reliance on subsidy. He says: “It would seem that the re- 
treat from morality by science is now full, for the dominant view 
in social science today is that social scientists might well learn 
from natural scientists how to achieve a new social status deriva- 
tive from what can be subsidized rather than from what requires 
investigation.” (P. 10.) He criticizes social scientists for surrender- 
ing their birthright as analysts and critics of social structures and 
for having become hired men doing little jobs for corporations, 
fund-raising associations, magazines interested in market re- 
search, and oddments of American culture. (P. 37.) More im- 
portantly, he says: 

Nor should sociologists continue to be solicitors of funds 
from agencies who tell them what they want research done 
on. Sociologists should make it possible to get funds for 
research without selling their souls. * * * The ideology of 
our so-called “applied” social research people appears to be 
the same as that of the foundations or corporations who 
give them money. Since many jobs are created this way, and 
jobs (sometimes partly paid for with degrees) attract 
graduate students and enhance sociology’s respectability, any 
suggestion that this is the road to moral ruin sounds evan- 
gelical to those sociologists who have long lingered with 
Beelzebub. (P.43.) 

Simpson recommends the giving of “unmarked” grants to uni- 
versities and to professional societies of sociologists, to avoid 
domination by foundations. The difficulty, he remarks, is that nei- 


ther universities nor societies have prepared adequately for such 
responsibility. “They have become so addicted to absentee owner- 
ship of social research, that many sociologists would be unable to 
find any research to do unless somebody told them what he 
wanted done.” (P. 43.) From his “liberal” point of view, he argues 
that the subsidizers are afraid of “dangerous” topics, but he says 
that the scholars themselves and not those who supply research 
money should decide what research needs doing. 

Simpson has this to say regarding the current preference for 
empirical research: 

To be sure, empirical research is absolutely indispensable 
in reaching sociological conclusions. But empirical research 
today has become a magical phrase; if you say you are do- 
ing it, the gods bless you. Even if you are not doing it, it 
is still good to say you are. But sociologists must regain 
their respect for the necessity of sitting in an arm chair 
long enough to know what they are going to do empirical 
research on, what their hypothesis is, whether it is worth 
prosecuting, what contribution to human knowledge they 
intend to make, and, simply, to make their ideas clear. 
Indeed, it may even be found profitable to read a book. 
It is not good to attack a calculating machine or draw up a 
questionnaire with little in our heads. The pendulum has 
swung too far in one dii'ection. It is time to resynthesize 
learning and techniques, theory and research, education and 
thinking, morality and sociology, and even the Social 
Sciences. (Pp. 44*45.) 


Dr. A. H. Hobbs of the University of Pennsylvania is a living ex- 
ample of the danger of criticizing foundations and foundation 
practices. He is only an assistant professor. He wryly calls himself 
“the oldest assistant professor east of the Rockies.” To the shame of 
his university, he has been told in no uncertain terms by his su- 


periors there that he has no hope of rising in the hierarchy. Why? 
Because he is a dissident. 

The treatment of Professor Hobbs at the University of Pennsyl- 
vania is a black mark upon the record of that great institution. It is 
an outstanding example of suppression of academic freedom. Yet, 
as far as I know, none of the “liberals” who cry out so loudly that 
freedom is being suppressed whenever a Communist professor is 
discharged have entered even the mildest protest against the per- 
secution of Professor Hobbs, whose only sin lias been to have an 
independent mind and the strength of character to use it, 

Behind the persecution of Professor Hobbs, and accountable for 
it, lies the fact that the foundation-supported “concentration of 
power” has been angered by his independence of mind and his 
frank criticism. He has been a strong critic of many of the meth- 
ods used in contemporary social-science research, methods which 
the foundation complex has fostered. 

Professor Hobbs, in his book The Claims of Sociology : a Cri- 
tique of Textbooks , published in 1951, analyzed more than 100 
leading textbooks on sociology used in high schools and colleges. 
He discovered that practically all of them, in varying degrees, 
were slanted toward collectivism. In the case of economics, Pro- 
fessor Hobbs wrote: 

Only a few (six) texts attempt to present an objective, 
integrated view of the principles and processes which char- 
acterize the economic institutions of the United States. 
Characteristically, the major portion of the treatment of eco- 
nomics is devoted to criticism, to emphasis on maldistribu- 
tion of wealth and income, and to presentation of remedies 
or alternatives for prevailing economic principles and proc- 

The single point of view taken by virtually all the examined 
books was characterized by attacks on big business; adulation of 
big government; emphasis on maldistribution of wealth (even at- 

* The Claims of Sociology, p. 81. 


tributing to it the major cause for divorce); pleas for some sort of 
modernization of religion to eliminate its '‘mysticism” and relate it 
to “modern society”; and the development of a “humanitarian” 
point of view. This “humanitarianism,” says Professor Hobbs, in- 

lamentation about war, economic maldistribution, and in- 
dividual unhappiness. It appears, however, to be secular, ma- 
terialistic, short-term humanitarianism. It is “liberal” if the 
term applies to doctrinaire criticisms of economic maldistri- 
bution, of inequalities between sexes, classes and races, and 
of social controls which inhibit each person’s full expression 
of his own personality. It is not completely liberal, however, 
if this term implies a tolerant historical perspective and a 
balanced and unbiased presentation of controversial issues 
in society. It is “objective” if this term applies only to 
critical emphasis against institutions and traditions. It is 
lacking in objectivity, however, in uncritical acceptance of 
platitudinous remedies and goals for society. It is “scien- 
tific” if this term includes a process of selection of only 
certain aspects of quantitative data and certain types of 
studies. It is not scientific if the term excludes the use of 
unverified hypotheses in proceeding from unwarranted as- 
sumptions to untenable conclusions. 

Professor Hobbs is not alone in these criticisms. Many eminent 
professors agree with him. But he has been one of those few who 
have had the courage to express their opinions. Those who domi- 
nate foundation-supported social-science research profess to ad- 
vocate freedom of opinion, but they do not encourage the expres- 
sion of opinions contrary to their own. They profess to advocate 
“controversy” and assert their right to use foundation funds for its 
promotion. More often than not, however, it is but one side of a 
controversy that they wish heard, when it has political implica- 
tions — the side to the left. 

Professor Hobbs is a sociologist. He is brilliant and exception- 
ally well informed. He is given to independent thought, a precious 


commodity in our society. But he pays the price of independence. 
He supports his family on the salary of a laborer. He stands as one 
of the object-lessons to academicians: Conform or Be Damned.* 


Professor Hobbs testified before the Reece Committee that the 
many millions of dollars poured annually into “social-science” re- 
search by some of the large foundations and their satellites or in- 
terlocked organizations, such as The Social Science Research 
Council, are largely wasted and unproductive of anything sub- 
stantial or useful. But the waste involved was not his most severe 
criticism. He gave example after example of such research which 
offered a direct danger to our society. What goes under the name 
of “social science” today is often quackery. It is what Professor 
Hobbs called “scientism,” f 

Underlying the prevailing approach to research and teaching in 
the “social sciences” is the concept that social problems can be 
solved in the same manner as some physical problems, by a “scien- 
tific” method. Obviously enough, the collection of certain kinds of 
empirical data can be of enormous value. But overindulgence in 
the concept that there is a “scientific” solution for social problems, 
an overindulgence which some of the foundations have closely 
fostered, produces absurdity and peril. Professor Hobbs pointed 
out that the solution of social problems invariably involves the in- 
tegration of intangible factors, such as love, patriotism, sentiment 
and other elements which cannot be measured with calipers, a 
slide rule, or an adding machine. 

The jury-tapping project financed by The Ford Foundation, 
conducted in connection with a “sociological” project of the Uni- 
versity of Chicago, illustrates the danger of overindulgence in the 
empirical approach. The problem of the project, I suppose, was to 

• Professor Hobbs’s persecution is described in E. Merrill Root's Collectivism 
on the Campus and also is referred to in an article in the April 18, 1956, issue 
of the National Review by Russell Kirk, in which the latter said, "Sociology is 
thoroughly dominated by an entrenched orthodoxy,” an orthodoxy which 
will not tolerate an Independent mind such as Professor Hobbs's, 
t See A. H. Hobbs, Social Problems and Scientism, Stackpole, 1953, 


determine whether or not the jury system could be improved. To 
go about this by eavesdropping on juries to find out how they 
deliberate is fact-finding of a nature which is extremely dangerous. 
The term “facts,” in itself, is misused by the overanxious empirical 
researcher. Of what value is the well-known “fact” that jurymen 
spend part of their time discussing the baseball scores, and that 
much of their argument would hardly do on a debating team. 
Have these “facts" any scientific fact-value? Are we to conclude, 
through a collection of such “facts,” that jurymen are not compe- 
tent to fulfill the function which our legal system has assigned to 
them? Are such “facts” to be the basis of a plea that we should, in 
some way, control juries to make them more attentive to duty, or 
screen them to confine jury duty to those with a high I.Q.? 

The jury-tapping procedure was an abortive attempt to solve a 
problem through empirical “science." If juries are to be abolished, 
or the jury procedure radically amended, it should be only after 
a most careful reconsideration of the historical origins and the 
philosophical rationale of the jury as an institution and not upon 
the basis of statistical “fact” collection by eavesdroppers. It may 
well be that the jury system as it stands should be most carefully 
preserved, even though jurymen represent only a cross-section of 
intelligence and even if jurymen do waste time discussing base- 


The “social scientists,” who have followed the course which has 
been so widely encouraged with foundation money, have become 
hypnotized, it seems, by the title of “scientists" which they have 
misappropriated. They have concluded that only “social scien- 
tists ” can solve our social problems. They have made themselves 
into an “£lite" — they have called themselves “social engineers." 
They have been touched with the Fiihrer complex — they have be- 
come convinced that they are qualified to lead us into better pas- 
tures. How? Through the “scientific method." 

The Reece Committee found many expressions of this “dite"- 
“social engineering” concept among social-scientist writers and 


publicists. Dr. Pendleton Herring, president of The Social Science 
Research Council, expressed it this way in an article in the SSRC 
Items of March 1947: 

One of the greatest needs in the social sciences is for the 
development of skilled practitioners who can use social data 
for the cure of social ills as doctors use scientific data to 
cure bodily ills.* 

The “social doctors” have acquired a "fact-finding mania” — 
they have gone overboard on empiricism. Trying to imitate the use 
of the empirical method as one of the necessary tools of natural 
science, they have all too often forgotten that the natural scientist 
deals with measurable facts while the social scientist can measure 
comparatively little;f that the natural scientist sets up conditional 
hypotheses and tests them through experiment, while the social 
scientist can hardly experiment with human beings outside of a 
totalitarian concentration camp. 

As Professor Hobbs put it in his Social Problems and Scien- 

An over-emphasis on facts as facts is one of the characteristics 
of what is sometimes called the empirical approach. Ideally, 
empiricism could mean that the investigators relied solely 
upon controlled observation and experimental evidence. 
Actually, much of the empiricism in social science involves 
no rigid experimentation, and the facts are questionable, 
fragmentary, and slanted. Empiricism in social science 
seems to owe its extreme popularity more nearly to des- 
peration rather than plan. Philosophic and scientific jus- 

* Recce Committee Report , p. 127. 

t Like Professor Hobbs, Professor Sorokin has pointed out sharply that, where 
there are no units, the quantified qualities cannot be measured with any 
scientific accuracy — measurements of them are "bound to be fictitious rather 
than real, arbitrarily superimposed upon the phenomena rather than giving 
objective measurement of them." Again: "Where there are no units and 
numbers, all the formulae and equations are either void or represent a sub- 
jective ranking, weighing, and scoring by the devotees of a misplaced quanti- 
fication." Fads and Foibles in Modern Sociology, Regnery, 1956, Chapter 

X Ibid., ^. 6 ^ 


tification for the type of empiricism generally employed in 
social science is extremely tenuous. It seems to spring more 
from a frantic effort to acquire the external appearance 
of science and the accolade of “practicality 1 ' than to grow 
out of any carefully thought out system of either philosophy 
or science. * * * A belief appears to exist that somehow 
empiricism is more advanced, more modern, than reliance 
on reason and logic, such as rationalism involves.* 

In his Fads and Foibles in Modern Sociology, Professor Sorokinf 
blasts the “illusion of operationalisin'* and the measuring-phobia 
in social-science research. Among his most devastating arguments 
against the excessive use of the empirical approach is the follow- 

* * * if the operationalists had really studied how an 
overwhelming majority of the most important scientific dis- 
coveries, technological inventions, the greatest religious, phil- 
osophical and technical verities, and the highest artistic 
achievements really originated and grew, they would have 
learned, first, that they were born in intuition; second, that 
the intuitional idea was developed and elaborated by log- 
ical and mathematical thought which was used in making all 
the necessary deductions or consequences from the intui- 
tional (or "postulational”) principle; and finally, that in 
die field of science these deductions were tested by again 
rationally devised experimental, inductive, or operational 

• Professor Sorokin, in his Fads and Foibles in Modem Sociology , puts it this 
way: “Most of the defects of modem psychosocial science are due to a clumsy 
imitation of the physical sciences. • * * most of the numerous ‘experimental* 
studies in sociology and psychology are • * • pseudo-experimental, and 
have a very remote relationship, if any, to real experimental method. • • 1 
we should by all means use a real experimental method in our studies where* 
ever it can be applied, and the more it is used the better. But we should not 
fool ourselves and others with shanvexperlraental procedures. They do not 
and cannot contribute to the Teal knowledge of psychosocial phenomena. If 
anything, they corrode the real experimental method and psychosocial science 

•f- Chapter Three. 

1 Pp- 35-$6- 


And again: 

To abandon intuitional insight and logical thought in favor 
of operational method would amount to castrating creative 
thought generally, and in science particularly. Without in* 
tuition and logic no real progress in science, religion, phi- 
losophy, ethics, and the fine arts has been or will be possible. 

Professor Sorokin ridicules the wide use of the poll-taking 
method of operation, calling it unscientific, vague, indeterminate 
and, more often than not, “hearsay" in its product, 

Even their "hearsay" material is ordinarily collected not by 
the investigators themselves, but by their assistants and hired 
pollsters. Imagine physicists or chemists operating in this 
fashion and then tabulating the collected opinions and giv- 
ing the results in the form of various statistical tables and 
Other paraphernalia to point to the "objectivity" of their 
"scientific" and "operational" techniques, 

Moreover, says Professor Sorokin, "what is true or false cannot be 
decided by majority vote." 

“The tidal wave" of the quantitative, empirical method of re* 
search is now so high, says Professor Sorokin, "that the contem- 
porary stage of the psychosocial sciences can be properly called 
the age of quantophobia and numerology ." 

The "comptometer compulsion," the "fact-finding mania" of 
these foundation-supported "social scientists" induce them to ac- 
cept the principle of moral relativity — that moral laws are only rela- 
tive — "the facts" speak for themselves and must dictate moral law; 
whatever "the facts" disclose is right. 

The accepted moral law must be taken into consideration in any 
attempt to find socially acceptable solutions to social problems. As 
Professor Rowe testified: "Ideas and concepts and values are far 
more important * * * than much of the indisputable, completely 
noncontroversial factual material that political scientists seem to 
occupy themselves with so much in the present day,"* But the 

f Reece Committee Report , p. G5, 


“social engineers’* who are dedicated to “engineering” us into bet- 
ter ways reject this principle. Thus, if Dr. Kinsey concludes that 
girls would be happier in the long run if their marriages were 
preceded by considerable, and even unusual, sex experience, then, 
say these “social engineers,” the moral and legal concepts which 
proscribe it should be abandoned. 

Nor, say these “social engineers,” are any political principles to 
be accepted as basic. If, for example, a function can be more effi- 
ciently exercised by the Federal government than by the individ- 
ual states, it should be so exercised, regardless of the principle of 
limited Federal jurisdiction which is fundamental to our system 
and is our greatest protection against totalitarianism. 

Nor, inasmuch as social “scientists” deem themselves exclu- 
sively competent, are political principles to be determined by such 
incompetents as lawyers, doctors, farmers, and businessmen. As 
The Social Science Research Council said in its statement filed 
with the Reece Committee, the social scientists 

command the analytical methods for most effectively get- 
ting at such questions in basic and tangible terms.* 

And its 1927 report included among its aims: 

to make possible the substituting of more scientific social 
control for the rule-of-thumb methods which men have 
happened upon in their effort to live together.f 

One more quotation, again from Dr. Herring, the president of 
The Social Science Research Council, in its first issue of Items: 

Here we wish simply to emphasize that in our generation 
efforts are being made to arrange and control human re- 
lationships more consciously, more deliberately, and, it is 
to be hoped, more responsibly than during the last 
century. An interdependent world is being forced to an 

* Ibid., p. 126. 
j Ibid., p. 128. 


awareness of the limitations of individual freedom and per- 
sonal choice.* 

With these quotations we can now finally understand the the- 
ory of the “social engineers’* in The Ford Foundation who ap- 
proved of eavesdropping on juries. Those in charge of the jury 
project were dealing with an aged institution, the jury, which had 
been adopted by our society through “rule-of-thumb” methods 
and not by the “scientific” method of which the social engineers 
were allegedly capable. True, the jury is one of our fundamental 
protections, almost universally approved by our lawyers, jurists, 
statesmen, legislators, and public. But these are not “scientists.** 
Only the social “scientists” are capable of understanding whether 
the jury system is sound or not. This they can determine by get- 
ting at “the facts.” So they were getting at the “facts” by violating 
the privacy of jurors. 

To make this situation doubly clear, I shall quote once more 
from The Social Science Research Council, because it is, more or 
less, the guiding spirit in social-science research. Its 1928-1929 re- 
port discloses one of its purposes: 

* * * a sounder empirical method of research had to be 
achieved in political science, if it were to assist in the 
development of a scientific political control.'}* 

Political control is thus to be left in the hands of the “£lite,” the 
“social engineers.” What the people want is not necessarily good 
for them; they are not competent to decide. The FiXhrers must 
decide it for them, so that we can have a scientifically based and 
intelligent society. 

The Reece Committee report quoted a distinguished professor, 
Dr. Carl O. Sauer of the University of California: 

In American social science it has indeed become a dom- 
inant folkway to associate progress with putting the job 
inquiiy into large-scale organizations, under formally pre- 

• Ibid., p. 126. 

t lbid. f p. 125. 


scribed methods, and with limited objectives. Having 
adopted the name "science,” we are impressed by the 
"Method of science” as inductive, quantitative, experimen- 
tal. We are even told that such is the only proper method.* 

This eminent academician minced no words in discussing the 
part played by the complex composed of certain of the founda- 
tions and intermediary organizations concerned with direct re- 
search, such as The Social Science Research Council. He said: 

A serious and delicate problem is posed by the growing 
role of the national research council and foundation, the 
last years having seen a continually increasing concentration 
of influence. 

And, he said, social scientists have developed 

hierarchies of conference members who speak a common 
language, obscured from us by its own ceremonial terms. 
They become an 61ite, fashioning increasingly the direc- 
tions and limits of our work, as they become more and more 
removed from the producers. 

The foundation-supported concept of "social engineering,” with 
its political implications, was castigated by Professor Sauer in 
these words: 

Research programs are set up in terms of social goals, and 
it is assumed that professional training provides the deep 
insight needed. Having set up schools for the training of 
prophets, it gratifies us to hear that the great task of social 
science is to remake the world. f 

Among the material used by the Committee were letters re- 
ceived from three of the leading sociologists of today, Professor 
Pitirim A. Sorokin of Harvard, Professor Carle C. Zimmerman of 
Harvard, and Professor James H. S. Bossard of Pennsylvania. 
Professor Zimmerman went so far as to say: 

• Ibid., p. 83. 

•\Ibid., p. 84. 


The tax-exempt foundations in the United States have un- 
fairly and undesirably emphasized empirical research to 
such an extent that the whole meaning of social-science re- 
search has come to be ridden with sham and dubious prac- 

Professor Sorokin saidf : 

The futility of excessively favoring this sort of research 
[the empirical] particularly is well demonstrated by its 
sterility — in spite of the many millions of dollars, enormous 
amount of time and energy expended by research staffs. 
Almost all of the enormous mass of research along this line 
in the United States of America for the last 25 or 30 years 
has not produced either any new significant social theory or 
any new method, or any new technique, or any scientifically 
valid test, or even any limited causal uniformity. 

Professor Sorokin’s judgment of the sterility of most foundation- 
supported social-science research is supported by an address, 
“New Concepts in Education,*’ by Dr. Stuart A, Courtis, made to 
the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 
* 95 °' P art of which is quoted in the Reece Committee report];: 

As a result we are today in possession of mountains of 
quantitative data whose interpretation is not furthered by 
our experiments, and we have discovered no laws as the 
exact sciences know law. We possess only large masses of 
quantitative conclusions nearly worthless for purposes of 

Referring to the mass production of research, Professor Sorokin 
has said: 

The research factories manufacturing such products have 
become the dominant industry of sociological and psycho- 

• Ibid., p. 64. 

t Report, p. 78. 

JP.e 3 . 


logical research. Their products are manufactured on a 
mass scale, moving along the assembly line almost as me- 
chanically as automobiles. As a result, scientific journals, 
texts and monographs are filled mainly with this sort of re- 
search. Its total volume has already become so large that 
nobody, except "the All-Remembering, All-Indexing, and 
All-Tabulating Electronic Robot," can know, remember, 
and use this cosmic mass of research. Human scholars and 
scientists can hardly master it; after all, human memory is 
limited, and human life is too short. Moreover, it is not 
certain whether these products are worth remembering. 
Many real scholars refuse to waste their time and energy 
in plodding through miles and miles of this monotonous 
research. * * * Preoccupation with this time-and-fund-con- 
suming research leaves little time for the researchers to 
study more important sociocultural phenomena, or to ac- 
quaint themselves with the vast fund of real knowledge 
accumulated by hundreds of eminent social thinkers. In this 
research industry the researchers have hardly any time 
even for seriously thinking about the problems studied 
and still less time for cultivating intuition or incisive ra- 
tional thought, or for developing their minds generally. As 
a result of this mechanized research industry, we have a vast 
army of “research-factory hands" who, in the terms of Lao- 
Tze, “are never wise men, while wise men are never re- 
searchers." No wonder, therefore, that this vast army has not 
enriched our knowledge by many new discoveries or veri- 

Professor Bossard expressed his concern over the effect that the 
recent emphasis (by foundations) on the "comptometer approach” 
would have upon research. He wrote: 

The monies and influence of the large foundations naturally 
do a great deal to set the norms of professional acceptance 
in a given field, and it is in this respect, difficult to measure 
• Fads and Foibles in Modern Sociology, pp. 299-300. 


statistically but possibly of very great importance, that a 
distinct disservice may be done to sociological research by 
an undue emphasis upon any particular emphasis or meth- 

To quote Professor Sorokin again: 

In the raging epidemic of quantophrenia everyone can be 
“researchers” and “scientific investigators,” because every- 
one can take a few sheets of paper, fill them with all sorts of 
questions, mail the questionnaires to all possible respon- 
dents, receive the answered copies, classify them in this or 
that way, process them through a tabulating machine, ar- 
range the results into several tables (with all the mechan- 
ically computed percentages, coefficients or correlation, 
Chi-Square indices, standard deviations and probable er- 
rors), and then write a paper or a book filled with the most 
impressive array of tables, formulae, indices, and other 
evidence of “objective, thorough, precise, quantitative” 
research. These are typical “rites” in "contemporary quanti- 
tative research” in sociology, psychology, and other psycho- 
social sciences. * * * Hence the rising tide of quanto- 
phrenic studies in these disciplines. * * * The Nemesis of 
such simulacra is sterility and error— and this Nemesis is 
already walking abroad among the contemporary psycho- 
social sciences.f 

Similar statements were made by various academicians who 
were reluctant to have their names disclosed for fear of reprisal 
from the foundation world. One renowned professor of economics, 
whose teachings conflict with the ruling interventionist school, a 
man of worldwide prestige and of independent thought, stated to 
me that no student of his could get a grant from any of the foun- 
dations which form part of the complex (which the Reece Com- 
mittee referred to as a “concentration of power”) because he does 

• Recce Committee Report, p. 64. 
f Fads and Foibles in Modern Sociology, pp, 178-173. 


not follow the comptometer school of research which the major 
foundations promote. 

The nonconformists and their students stand little chance of 
receiving support for research from those foundations which have 
delegated the selection of grant recipients to professional councils 
which are strictly controlled by majorities adhering to the current 
orthodoxies. It is no wonder that so much sterility has resulted 
in social-science research fields. There is little controversy in such 
kept "science.” Researchers work in a foundation-created cli- 
mate which offers rewards for conformity and the penalty of 
abandonment for dissent. The~degrading effect of this upon the 
academic world accounts for the general sterility of social- 
science research in the United States. 


Professor Hobbs rightly asserted that social scientists should 
exercise the greatest care in informing the public when their 
work is not truly "scientific." The very term “social science” im- 
plies that their conclusions are unassailable because they are 
"scientifically” arrived at. There is the constant danger, then, that 
laymen will take these conclusions as axiomatic bases for social 
action. Perhaps the best illustration of this is the remarkable 
number of writings which appeared after the publication of 
the reports on the Rockefeller Foundation-supported Kinsey 
studies.* With the assumedly "scientific" character of Dr. 

•The Rockefeller Foundation's statement filed with the Committee explained 
its connection with the Kinsey studies in this way. In igji it "became in- 
terested in systematic support for studies in sexual physiology and behavior.'* 
It had become increasingly interested in the "life sciences" and less in the 
"physical sciences." And, it continued, "support for studies in reproductive 
physiology and behavior constituted an obviously necessary part of this pro- 
gram since the ability to reproduce is one of the elementary characteristics 
of living organisms." Its woTk in these areas was chiefly in connection with 
the "committee for research in problems of sex of The National Research 
Council," to which, by 1954, the Foundation had granted $1,755,000, in 
annual grants running from $75,000 to $240,000. Beginning about 1941, a con- 
siderable portion of these funds was supplied to Dr. Kinsey’s studies, and one 
grant was made direct to Dr. Kinsey. The NRC grants to these studies were 
with the knowledge and approval of the Foundation. 

The work of the NRC produced some results of truly noteworthy impor* 


Kinsey's work behind us, we had such things offered to the 
public as this by one Anne G. Frcegood, in the September 1953 
issue of Harptfs: 

The desert in this case is our current code of laws governing 
sexual activities and the background of Puritan tradition 
regarding sex under which this country still to some extent 

Later on she wrote that the first Kinsey report '‘has already been 
cited in court decisions and quoted in textbooks as well as 
blazoned from one end of the country to the other/' 

Professor Hobbs, in Social Problems and Scientism, p. 93, de- 
scribed the aftermath of Dr. Kinsey's Rockefeller Foundation- 
supported first report as follows: 

Despite the patent limitations of the study and its persistent 
bias, its conclusions regarding sexual behavior were widely 
believed. They were presented to college classes; medical 
doctors cited them in lectures; psychiatrists applauded them; 
a radio program indicated that the findings were serving 
as a basis for revision of moral codes relating to sex; and an 
editorial in a college student newspaper admonished the 
college administration to make provision for sexual outlets 
for the students in accordance with the “scientific realities” 
as established by the book. 

Some of these Kinseyites have said that our laws are wrong 
because they do not follow the biological "facts.” Published 
reports such as those of Kinsey can do immeasurable harm when 
they falsely pretend to disclose biological "facts.” A great part of 
the Kinsey product is without basis in true "fact” and is mere 
propaganda for some personally intriguing concepts. 

tance and great value to society in the field of physiology. 1 intend no crit- 
icism of the Foundation's grants in so far as they were used for physiological 
studies. But the much-publicized “best-seller" Kinsey studies base an ad- 
vocacy of criminal and social reform on the very unscientific material which 
Dr. Kinsey had collected and permitted to be widely disseminated, 


Professor Hobbs pointed out that Dr. Kinsey ridiculed “so- 
cially approved patterns of sexual behavior/’ calling them “ra- 
tionalizations/’ while usually referring to socially condemned 
forms of sexual behavior as “normal” or “normal in the human 
animal.” This presentation, said Professor Hobbs, “could give 
the impression, and it gave the impression to a number of re- 
viewers, that things which conform to the socially approved codes 
of sexual conduct are rationalizations, not quite right, while 
things which deviate from it, such as homosexuality, are normal, 
in a sense right/’* 

Professor Hobbs stressed the fact that such pseudoscientific 
presentations could seriously affect public morality. Here is part 
of his testimony: 

For an illustration, in connection with the question of het- 
erosexuality compared with homosexuality, Kinsey in the 
first volume has this statement: 

“It is only because society demands that there be a par- 
ticular choice in the matter (of heterosexuality or homo- 
sexuality) and does not so often dictate one's choice of 
food or clothing.” 

He puts it in [these] terms . • * it is just a custom which 
society demands. 

In the second volume it is stressed, for example, that we 
object to adult molesters of children primarily because we 
have become conditioned against such adult molesters of 
children, and that the children who are molested become 
emotionally upset, primarily because of the old-fashioned 
attitudes of their parents about such practices, and the par- 
ents (the implication is) are the ones who do the real 
damage by making a fuss about it if a child is molested. 
Because the molester, and here I quote from Kinsey, “may 
have contributed favorably to their later sociosexual develop- 
ment.” That is, a molester of children may have actually, 
Kinsey contends, not only not harmed them, but may have 

• Recce Committee Report , pp. 69-70. 


contributed favorably to their later sociosexual development. 
Especially emphasized in the second volume, the volume on 
females, is the supposed beneficial effects of premarital 
sexual experiences. Such experiences, Kinsey states: "pro- 
vide an opportunity for the females to learn to adjust emo- 
tionally to various types of males." 

That is on page 266 of the volume on females. 

In addition, on page 327 he contends that premarital sex- 
ual experience may well contribute to the effectiveness of 
one's other nonsexual social relationships, and that many 
females — this is on page 115— will thus learn how to respond 
to sociosexual contacts. 

On page 328, that it should contribute to the development 
of emotional capacities in a more effective way than if sexual 
experiences are acquired after marriage. 

The avoidance of premarital sexual experience by females, 
according to Professor Kinsey, may lead to inhibitions 
which damage the capacity to respond, so much that these 
inhibitions may persist after years of marriage, "if, indeed, 
they are ever dissipated." That is from page 330. 

So you get a continued emphasis on the desirability of 
females engaging in premarital sexual behavior. In both 
these volumes there is a persistent emphasis, a persistent 
questioning of the traditional codes, and the laws relating 
to sexual behavior. Professor Kinsey may be correct or he 
may be incorrect, but when he gives the impression that the 
findings are scientific in the same sense as the findings in 
physical science, then the issue becomes not a matter of 
whether he as a person is correct or incorrect, but of the 
impression which is given to the public, which can be 
quite unfortunate.* (Hearings, pp. 129, 130.) 

The special responsibility of The Rockefeller Foundation for 
having financed the Kinsey "best sellers" comes sharply to roost 
in this quotation from an article by Albert Deutsch in Harper’s : 

# Ibid,, p. 70. 


So startling are its revelations, so contrary to what civilized 
man has been taught for generations, that they would be 
unbelievable but for the impressive weight of the scientific 
agencies backing the survey .* 

Note how impressive is the word "scientific.” And how false. 
How dangerous to society if foundations support the theory that 
social problems can be scientifically solved by mere interviewing 
techniques. Apart from the doubtful veracity of the samples of 
men and women questioned by Kinsey, his statistical methods 
have been seriously criticized by organs of the American Statisti- 
cal Association and several scholarly reviewers. But even if the 
sampling had been representative of American attitudes on sex, 
and even if all the persons interviewed had been willing to give 
truthful answers and were psychologically capable of doing so, 
it seems preposterous to propose that social change should be 
justified upon empirical inquiry alone. 

Should concepts of value (legal, religious, ethical ideas) be 
abandoned merely because any number of men find them op- 
pressive and neglect to live up to them? Are we justified in 
advocating a change in the criminal law because certain types 
of crimes are practiced widely? Shall we abrogate punishment for 
speeding, for theft, for adultery, for fraudulent voting, for in- 
come-tax evasion, if we find that such illegalities are practiced by 
a majority? By twenty percent of our people? By eighty percent? 
What percentage of our population must express itself, either by 
response to interviews or by action, in favor of an illegality to 
convince a social scientist that the law proscribing it should be 
abrogated? Similar questions might be asked in relation to the 
weighing of existing ethical concepts such as patriotism, respect 
for parents and elders, and tolerance of dissidence. 

The basic fallacy of the Kinsey approach and that of the ruling 
research clique in the social sciences stems from a confusion be- 
tween what is a fact, what is an expression of opinion, and what 
is an a priori concept of value. The puerile doctrine that change 

•Ibid., p.71. 


is always necessary has led many of these “scientists” to believe 
that there are no longer any “inalienable rights/' no longer any 
unchanging duties. They deem themselves justified, with the 
support of foundation grants, to label their prejudices as truth 
and to experiment with society. The Reece Committee report puts 
it thus: 

It seems to this Committee that there is a strong tendency 
on the part of many of the social scientists whose research 
is favored by the major foundations toward the concept that 
there are no absolutes, that everything is indeterminate, that 
no standards of conduct , morals, ethics and government 
are to be deemed inviolate, that everything , including basic 
moral law, is subject to change, and that it is the part of the 
social scientists to take no principle for granted as a premise 
in social or juridical reasoning, however fundamental it 
may heretofore have been deemed to be under our Judeo - 
Christian moral system . # 


Poll taking has become one aspect of the fact-finding mania. 
Professor Hobbs testified regarding The American Soldier, a book 
prepared and edited under the auspices of The Social Science 
Research Council. He described the process by which social 
scientists, against the repeated objections of the military authori- 
ties, managed to “incorporate their own ideas in a matter of 
highest military significance.” This was the method of discharge 
to be used by the military forces at the end of hostilities in World 
War II. Most of these “scientists” were foundation connected. 
Their work was praised by Frederick Osborn, a trustee of The 
Carnegie Corporation, as a “typical example of social-science pre- 
diction.” What was this “example”? These “scientists” decided 
that men should be discharged individually from the army ac- 
cording to a table of weighted factors, and that these factors 
should be determined by taking a poll of the men themselves. In 

9 Ibid., p. 7a. 


other words, Tegardless of military necessities, the men were to 
determine what weight should be given to length of service, 
front-line duty, and other factors in determining the order of 

The traditional method of demobilization called for the suc- 
cessive release of whole units from the armed forces, leaving 
unimpaired the strength of the remaining units. The method 
recommended by the social scientists, based upon alleged “scien- 
tific” findings, shattered the effectiveness of individual units. 

These “scientists’' prevailed. As a result, there can be little 
doubt that, if we had been forced into a resumption of hostilities, 
our army would have been reduced to a nadir of inefficiency. As 
the Committee report put it: 

The military policymakers were defeated by the social scien- 
tists. This was another victory in the struggle of the “social 
engineers" to gain control of all the throttles of control. 

* * * A few more such victories for “social engineering" 
might indeed be fatal.* 

In his statement filed with the Reece Committee, Mr. Charles 
Dollard, President of the Carnegie Corporation, defended the 
authors of The American Soldier , holding that our military 
forces themselves initiated the study and, inferentially, were re- 
sponsible for the outcome. Obviously enough, the study could 
not have been made without express military authorization. But 
it is inconceivable that any truly military minds could have 
initiated the study. Nor does that seem to have happened. The 
introduction to The American Soldier states that the officers 
responsible for advancing the project were General George C. 
Marshall and Brehon Somervell. But the actual officer in charge 
was General Frederick Osborn. General Osborn was no profes- 
sional soldier. He had been a civilian, an official of a factoring 
company, and it is of no little consequence that he was a trustee 
of the Carnegie Corporation. He had achieved some attention 
in social-science circles through various writings. His service in 

• Ibid,, p. 75. 


the army> where he rose to the rank of major general, seems to 
have been confined to the nonmilitary work of acting as director 
of the Information and Education Division, the unit through 
which the studies of demobilization methods were made. 

Among General Osborn’s staff were Dr. Samuel A. Stouffer, 
director of the professional staff, Dr. Carl I. Hovland, and Dr. 
Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., all identifiable as closely associated with 
The Social Science Research Council. In all probability it was 
some of these men, or some of the employed consultants, who gen- 
erated the idea of the study. A two-page list of such consultants ap- 
pears in the beginning of volume II of The American Soldier; 
many of these, in later reviews of the book, expressed enthusiastic 
praise for the work to which they had contributed. 

The introduction boasts: “Never before had modern methods 
of social science been employed on so large a scale by such 
competent technicians.” It also said: “The conservatism natural 
to professional men everywhere, and often particularly ascribed 
to the professional soldier, was broken down by the imaginative 
grasp of the abler leaders.” It would be interesting to know the 
full story of how these “leaders”— if military men were meant— 
were sold this “grasp.” At any rate, while the book cites that even 
the President approved of the project, it states: “The idea of 
a point system for demobilization had been conceived in the 
Research Branch * * This branch of the armed forces was 
operated not by military men but by social scientists. It is equally 
clear that there was powerful and consistent opposition to the 
point system from truly military men who realized how disastrous 
to our security the suggested discharge system could become. This 
point system contributed substantially to that grave weakness in 
our forces which left us unprepared for the Korean War, coming 
so soon after the close of World War II. 

Looking back, it is incredible that a group of so-called "scien- 
tists” could have been so blind to reality as to propose that 
military decisions be made through the process of finding out 
what the soldier in the ranks wanted. Moreover, the scientific 
value of this effort to justify a military decision by the poll-taking 


method has been questioned by many critics. Arthur M. Schles- 
inger, Jr., a historian who is certainly not suspect of being a con- 
servative, lashed out at the study in a review, "The Statistical 
Soldier.” He said: 

Too many obvious frauds were at last committed in the 
name of sociology * * * So the old and toothless beast 
was put out to pasture. In its place has come its more 
carnivorous son, known in his more modest mood under 
some such name as "social relations,” or, more often, in 
a tone of majestic simplicity, as "social science” * * * 

Well, the "social science” machinery has been grinding 
away for some years now. Occasionally skeptics approach the 
devout and say with proper humility: You have basked in 
the smile of the deans and in the favor of foundations. You 
are discovering the secret of the ages. We wish to share in 
the new enlightenment you are bringing us. But what, oh 
wise one, should we read? Can you name a single book that 
would give some idea of the great revelations that lie in 
wait? The oracle at that point used to become muffled. 
Then one began to hear of The American Soldier . This 
work one was told was the real stuff; this would settle the 

Schlesinger continues: 

Indeed, the more basic questions are raised, not by rela- 
tively innocuous practice of "social science” but by its 
mystique — its pretensions to Know Knowledge and new 
certitude — Most of The American Soldier is a ponderous 
demonstration in NEWSPEAK of such facts as [one can] 
find described more vividly and with far greater psycholog- 
ical insight in a small book entitled Up Front by Bill 
Mauldin. What Mauldin may have missed will turn up in 
the pages of Ernie Pyle. * * * Bursting onto university 
campuses after the war, overflowing with portentous if vague 

• Partisan Review, August 1949, 


hints of mighty wartime achievements (not, alas, to be dis- 
closed because of security), fanatical in their zeal and shame- 
less in their claims, they [the social scientists] persuaded 
or panicked many university administrators into giving their 
studies priority. Needless to say, they scored an even more 
brilliant success with foundations. Certain foundation di- 
rectors even decided that virtually all their funds for re- 
search in the social sciences should be expended on projects 
of the “social science” variety; the individual scholar, so 
far as they were concerned, was through. * * * The whole 
[is] happily subsidized by the foundations, carrying to tri- 
umphant completion their ancient hope of achieving the 
bureaucratization of American intellectual life. 

Apart from his criticism of the underlying scientific fadism, 
Schlesinger considers The American Soldier a “harmless book.” 
But most of the social scientists (and perhaps General Marshall 
also) considered The American Soldier a monumental contribu- 
tion to military policy and to the social sciences. In the words of 
Paul Lazarsfeld, one of the project's consultants; “The results 
of both volumes are without parallel in the history of the social 

The American Soldier comprised two out of four volumes of 
a series. The flyleaf says: 

The four volumes in this series were prepared and edited 
under the auspices of a Special Committee of the Social 
Science Research Council comprising 
Frederick Osborn, Chairman 
Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr. 

Leland C. De Vinney 
Carl I. Hovland 
John M. Russell 
Samuel A. Stouffer 
Donald Young, ex officio. 

The data on which these volumes are based were collected 
by the Research Branch, Information and Education Di- 


vision, War Department, during World War II. In making 
the data available the War Department assumes no responsi- 
bility for the analyses and interpretations contained in these 
volumes, which are the sole responsibility of the authors. 

These volumes were prepared under a grant from the 
Carnegie Corporation of New York. That corporation is not 
however the author, owner, publisher or proprietor of the 
publication, and is not to be understood as approving by 
virtue of its grant any of the statements made or views 
expressed therein, 

(This last reservation is typical of the method by which some 
foundations seek to use the “risk capital” theory and yet escape 
all responsibility for unhappy risk.) 

In Items , the official publication of The Social Science Re- 
search Council, issue of March 1949, an anonymous author 
boasts: “The point system was actually invented by the Research 
Branch and ‘sold 1 to the Army on the basis of attitude studies 
made in all parts of the world.” According to the SSRC, more than 
a half million soldiers were studied. These American soldiers were 
guinea pigs for social scientists, to satisfy their curiosity and their 
penchant for statistical analyses. Their persuasive promises of 
military benefits had sold the program to the authorities. This 
gave the associated professors jobs in Washington during the 
war time and an opportunity to gain prestige for a mysterious 
contribution to the war effort. It also almost wrecked our military 


In the face of the evidence produced by the Reece Committee, to 
deny that the major foundation complex slanted its research and 
its work to the left is futile. An example is the production of The 
Proper Study of Mankind , written by Stuart Chase, at the in- 
stance of Donald Young, then of The Social Science Research 
Council, and Charles Dollard, then of The Carnegie Corporation, 
to portray the condition and functioning of the social sciences. 


This book had enormous impact. Approximately 50,000 copies 
had been sold, which, for a book of this kind, is truly monumen- 

Mr. Chase was described by Professor Hobbs as a man who 
"has in his work definitely indicated his leanings towards col- 
lectivism and social planning * * * 

Mr. Chase had had a long history as a pamphleteer, In 1922 
he wrote for the League for Industrial Democracy, the declared 
object of which was “Education for a New Social Order Based 
on Production for Use and Not for Profit.” His book A New Deal , 
published in 1932/f recommended (1) a managed currency; 
(2) a drastic redistribution of the national income through in- 
come and inheritance taxes; and (3) a huge program of public 
works. He advocated nationwide economic controls "from the 
top,” proposed a National Planning Board, and claimed that his 
plan attempted “to dissolve capitalism with a minimum of gov- 
ernment interference” (p, 24), His blueprint for a new America 
ends with this question: “Why should Russians have all the fun 
of remaking a world?” 

In 1935 his book Government in Business J reprinted several 
of his magazine articles extolling the New Deal. Not satisfied with 
the degree of control already exercised by the Federal govern- 
ment, he advocated clearing the road through a straightforward 
revision of the Constitution§ and presented a long list of activities 
to be assumed by the Federal government. In his later books, he 
consistently pleaded for government control of and interference 
with private investment. He did not depart from the Cooperative- 
Socialist line until he began to write for Standard Oil of New 
Jersey after World War II. 

Mr. Chase was retained by The Twentieth Century Fund to 
write, among other books. Goals for America, which appeared in 
1942. This work advocated a “mixed economy.” In 1946 ap- 

# Report, p. 85, 
f Macmillan. 

X Macmillan. 

§ Supra, p. 287. 


peared his For This We Fought ,* He had the advantage of advice 
and criticism from the Twentieth Century Fund staff, but the 
Fund took the precaution to say that “the opinions and conclu- 
sions expressed by these books are those of Mr, Chase.” Among 
his conclusions were these: He recommended a government-ma- 
nipulated economy; as a new twist he asked for an “intensive 
stimulation of the social sciences, to help them to begin to catch up 
with the runaway physical sciences.” 

The first edition of his The Proper Study of Mankind , an In- 
quiry into the Study of Human Relations f includes an introduc- 
tion, “How This Book Came to Be Written ” It is quite clear, 
from this introduction, that Mr. Chase was chosen by two em- 
inent foundation executives, Donald Young (then president of 
The Social Science Research Council and now president of The 
Russell Sage Foundation) and Charles Dollard (then president of 
The Carnegie Corporation of New York), to write a book for 
them. The book was intended as a popular publicity piece, to in- 
terpret the meaning and goals of the social sciences to the general 
public. Both these gentlemen must have been familiar with Mr. 
Chase’s previous work and with his well-publicized political con- 
victions. The conclusion is inescapable that they selected Mr. 
Chase because they approved his bias, unless, indeed, one grants 
them complete indifference to his convictions. 

Mr. Chase had conferences with Messrs. Dollard and Young in 
the course of his work, and they participated in the sending out 
of a questionnaire to social scientists and exchanged ideas with 
Mr. Chase. Their tax-exempt organizations assumed the financial 
risk involved in the project. The book, in fact, may rightly be held 
to have been a semi-official publication of The Social Science 
Research Council. 

The book registers many examples of economic achievement in 
the social sciences. Several are of extreme interest. Mr. Chase said: 

• These assignments came from Evans Clark, a former director of the Depart- 
ment of Information, Bureau of the Representative in the United States of 
the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic (1920), later for many years 
executive director of The Twentieth Century Fund, 
j- Harper, 1948. 


"There is Harry White of the Treasury arguing with Lord Keynes 
as to the best form of the World Bank and the International Cur- 
rency Fund — then known as the Bretton Woods Plan." * And he 
lauded Lauchlin Currie as an able economist, a contributor to 
the federal agencies of the New Deal, and mentions his function 
on the board of economic warfare. The involvement of both Harry 
Dexter White and Lauchlin Currie in Communist networks is 
well known. 

The second edition of Mr. Chase’s book tones down the role of 
Messrs. Young and Dollard in the creation of the book, and omits 
the references to Messrs. White and Currie. Mr. Chase, in ex- 
pounding the concepts of foundation-supported and -directed 
social-science research, lays it on the line. We are to be managed 
by these experts, these social divines, with the new “scientific 
method" which he says can be “applied to the behavior of men 
as well as to the behavior of electrons." “Prepare now for a sur- 
prising universal," says Mr. Chase: 

Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be 
allowed any important part in the organization of society. 
Social systems which endure are built on the average person 
who can be trained to occupy any position adequately if not 

And how is this “scientific" management to take place? One 
gathers from Mr. Chase’s book, which seems to represent the of- 
ficial line of the foundation complex, that it is to be through “cul- 
tural determinism," via a molding of our minds by propaganda. 
Mr. Chase wrote: 

Theoretically, a society could be completely made over in 
something like 15 years, die time it takes to inculcate a 
new culture into a rising group of youngsters. 

Professor Hobbs in commenting on the book, saw “cultural de- 
terminism" as a weapon both of fascism and communism, a va- 

• P. Sll, 

t Recce Committee Report, p. 87. 


riety of “brainwashing 0 reminiscent of the Russian Pavlov’s ex* 
periments on the conditioning of dogs.* 

To quote Professor Hobbs again, he has said that the “zeal- 
ots*’ of the new research in the social sciences 

lead people to believe that techniques exist in social science 
which provide accurate description and enable prediction 
of social behavior. We are told to pattern our behavior and 
to change our society on the basis of such conclusions re- 
garding criminality, race relations, marriage, mental health, 
war, divorce, sex, and other personal and social affairs. Yet 
in these areas of behavior the pertinent knowledge is 
extremely limited and unreliable, the rules of behavior are 
vague and changeable, the techniques are crude and un- 
tested, and even the basic units required for measurement 
are non-existent. [Again:] Character and integrity are dis- 
solved in the acid ridicule of cultural determinism.f 


To the tune of $250,000, The Carnegie Corporation of New 
York financed a study of the race problems in the South. Dr. 
Gunnar Myrdal of Sweden was selected to run this study. He re- 
ported his findings in a book which became very influential, en- 
titled An American Dilemma . Dr. Myrdal was assertedly selected 
because he was a foreigner and thus could be an unprejudiced ob- 
server. Now, if the foundation moguls who thought a study of 
the southern race situation was desirable (and I have no doubt 
that it was) concluded that a foreigner should be chosen to make 
it, why did they select a socialist for the job? This was no ac- 
cidental selection. Dr. Myrdal’s politics were well known. Pro- 
fessor Kenneth Colegrove had been Secretary-Treasurer of The 
American Political Science Association for eleven years and knew 
a Socialist when he saw one. He testified that Dr. Myrdal was a 
“very left-wing socialist.” J It would be incredible to suppose that 

* Ibid.j pp. 86-87. 
f Ibid., p. 72. 

%Ibid. t p. 91. 


those who chose Dr. Myrdal did not realize the danger in giving 
him heavy foundation subsidy to study a problem of highly deli- 
cate political character. 

In An American Dilemma, Dr. Myrdal libeled and insulted the 
American people unmercifully. Our Constitution, he said, turned 
its back on the Declaration of Independence and was “dominated 
by property consciousness and designed as a defense against the 
democratic spirit let loose during the Revolution/’ He referred 
to our “nearly fetishistic cult of the Constitution,” continuing: 
“This is unfortunate since the 150-year-old Constitution is in many 
respects impractical and ill-suited for modern conditions * * 
“Modern historical studies,” said the good Dr. Myrdal, “reveal 
that the Constitutional Convention was nearly a plot against the 
common people.” 

Dr. Myrdal accused Americans of “a relatively low degree of 
respect for law and order.” He referred to an “anarchistic tend* 
cncy in America’s legal culture,” complicated by “a desire to reg- 
ulate human behavior tyrannically by means of formal laws.” We 
are a desperately low order of humanity: "Wc have to conceive 
of all the numerous breaches of law, which an American citizen 
commits or learns about in the course of ordinary living, as psy- 
chologically a series of shocks which condition him and the en- 
tire society to a low degree of law observance.” He talks about 
the possibility that, “in the course of time, Americans” might con- 
ceivably be “brought to be a law-abiding people.” * 

Professor Colegrove had this to say about An American Di- 
lemma j*: 

Dr. Myrdal was a Socialist, pretty far left, indeed ex- 
tremely left. He was not unprejudiced. He came over 
here with all the prejudices of European Socialists. And the 
criticism that he makes of the American Constitution, the 
criticism that he makes of the conservatives of the United 
States, are bitter criticisms. He didn’t have any praise at 

• Ibid., p. 89 et seq. 
j- Report, p. 91. 


all for the conservatives. He did praise what he called the 
liberals. And he implied that it was the conservatives in the 
United States who created the problem and who continued 
the difficulties of any solution. I felt the foundations did a 
great disservice to American scholarship in announcing his 
study as an objective nonpartisan study whose conclusions 
were wholly unbiased. It was almost intellectual dishonesty.* 

There is this strange aftermath to An American Dilemma , 
which illustrates the dangers when foundations finance studies in 
the social sciences without making certain that the product is to be 
objective. In a recent instance, the Supreme Court of the United 
States based one of its most important decisions in part upon the 
authority of this book. This was in the segregation cases (Brown 
v . Board of Education , 347 U.S. 483 and 349 U.S. 293). This 
feature of its decisions was aptly ridiculed in an article which ap- 
peared in the American Bar Association Journal of April 1956, 
written by Eugene Cook, the Attorney General of Georgia, and 
William I. Potter, of the Kansas City Bar. These writers expressed 
astonishment that the Court had “cited as authority college pro- 
fessors, psychologists, and sociologists/' rightly asking: 

Should our fundamental rights rise, fall or change along 
with the latest fashions of psychological literature? 

They continued: 

The book, An American Dilemma, written by Swedish so- 
cialist Gunnar Myrdal on a grant from the Carnegie Foun- 
dation, was cited in its entirety by the Supreme Court 
as an authority for its ruling. 

It was in this book that Myrdal declared the United States 
Constitution to be “impractical and unsuited to modem 
conditions" and its adoption to be “nearly a plot against the 
common people." Furthermore, he openly avowed that 

• 76 /d., p. 91. 


liberty must be foresaken for the benefit of what he called 
“social equality.” 

Has the present Supreme Court now adopted Myrdal’s 
view of the Constitution? 

In an article, “The Supreme Court Must Be Curbed,” appear- 
ing in the May x 8, 1956, issue of £7. 5. News & World Report, 
the former Justice of the Supreme Court, James F. Byrnes, cried 
out against the Court having supported its decision “not by 
legal precedents but. by the writings of sociologists." He noted its 
citation of the Myrdai book and said that “the files of the House 
Committee on Un-American Activities show that many of Myrdal's 
associates are members of organizations cited as subversive by 
the Depar tment of Justice under Democratic and Republican Ad- 

It is not my purpose here to discuss whether the Supreme 
Court's decision in the Brown case was right or wrong, but 
merely to point out that scientism , financed by great foundations, 
can find unexpected and startling places to roost, 

Charles Dollard of The Carnegie Foundation, in his statement 
filed with the Reece Committee, defended the selection of Dr. 
Myrdai for the race study, partly by attempting to show that the 
Swedish scholar was not a Socialist in the sense we use the term, 
He said it was “common knowledge, that the program inaugu- 
rated in Sweden by the Social Democrats is vastly different from 
what we in this country normally think of as socialism." This 
comment begged the question. Whatever program may have been 
“inaugurated" in Sweden by her Socialists, their objectives were 
those we rightly attribute to socialism. It is the objectives which 
count; these alone should count in appraising the bias of an au- 
thor who is being considered for research in a delicate and po- 
litical field of social science. 

There can be no doubt that the program of the Swedish Social 
Demokratiska Partie is anticapitalist. It preaches class struggle, 


expropriation of the means of production, a new regulation of in- 
come and property distribution. The by-laws of this party declare 
as its purpose: “in cooperation with the socialist parties of other 
countries to recreate the economic order of bourgeois society and 
to achieve liberation of the exploited classes/ 1 Raymond Fusilier, 
in his Le Parti Socialiste Suedois (1954)* reports that the party ad- 
vocates nationalization of oil, banking, and insurance. 

Messrs. Young and Dollard are highly intelligent, exceptionally 
well-informed men. There were plenty of unbiased and objective 
European scholars to choose from. Both Young and Dollard knew 
that the race problem was, indeed, one of great political delicacy. 
That they would not have cared what the political bias of a 
scholar selected for such an investigation might be, would at- 
tribute to them negligence foreign to their characters. The conclu- 
sion seems fair that Dr. Myrdal was cho:en not in spite of his col- 
lectivist bias but because of it. 

In one of his books, Warning Against Peace Optimism (1944)* 
Dr. Myrdal admits to an initial excitement and enthusiasm over 
the Russian Revolution, stating, however, that he was later re- 
pelled by the general absence of individual liberties in Russia. 
But he has never given up hope apparently, that Russia would 
come through to lead the world. After a three-week trip through 
Russia in 1941, he announced that he had become excited over 
the warm, human attitudes in the Soviet Union. He said that Rus- 
sia is still a puzzle to him, but that he wants to believe in Russia, 
not only in her future might but in the force of her “internation- 
alist, democratic ideals.*’ 

On another occasion (in Kontakt mit Amerika, 1942), this 
“scientific 1 * observer, selected by leaders in the social-science sec- 
tion of the foundation world to study our race problem, offered 
this opinion: “The ideals of Soviet socialism, even if up to now 
not its practice, are democratic. Russia even has the most demo- 
cratic constitution in the world.” He demonstrates his deep un- 
derstanding of the international situation by adding: “America 
must free the Russians from fear and permit Russia to develop her 
democratic ideals/* 


Far from contributing to a solution of the American race prob- 
lem, An American Dilemma , sponsored by tax-exempt founda- 
tions, supplied ammunition for use by Communist, neutralist, and 
other agitators to undermine America's position in a world pop- 
ulated by colored majorities. Myrdal said: “The treatment of the 
Negro is America's greatest scandal." This is not the language of 
science, but clearly the formulation of a political agitator. He said 
that the Negro's situation in the U. S. A. is "salt in the wounds 
of colored people all over the world, whose rising influence is 

No sensible person doubts that the race problem in the United 
States is a difficult and vital one, crying for sound and fair solu- 
tion. But it is clear that the assignment given to Dr. Myrdal by 
Carnegie Foundation and Social Science Research Council exec- 
utives involved incendiary matter which, it might readily be 
expected, a leader of international socialism would delight in ex- 
ploiting. This must have been foreseen by Dr. Myrdal’s sponsors. 

One more note on Dr. Myrdal. According to Fusilier, Myrdal’s 
radicalism in domestic affairs antagonized a great part of the so- 
cial democratic constituency in Sweden. This resentment against 
him may have led to his change of environment. He has become 
an important official of the United Nations, as Secretary of the 
U. N. Council for Europe. Here he works for economic integra- 
tion between East and West, opposes American influence in Eu- 
rope, accuses American industry of exploiting European custom- 
ers, and generally plays an active anti-American political role. 


The examples of scientism which I have given so far, slanting 
sharply to the left, are not isolated cases — "sports" of major founda- 
tion investment. One or two, or three or four, or even more, could 
be excused as accidents. But I am reminded of what Dr. Fred- 
erick P. Keppel once said to a student at Columbia when he was 
Dean of the College. He had informed the student that he was 
expelling him for excessive cuts. 


The young man replied: “But, Dean, I have had an excuse, 
every time/* 

“Yes," answered the Dean, “but you have had too many ex* 

Dean Keppei himself later became president of The Carnegie 

The Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences is the basic reference 
book in the “social sciences/ 1 Though it was even then somewhat 
out of date, it was estimated that, in 1952, it was consulted about 
half a million times. It is a book of tremendous importance and in- 
fiuence. The creation of the Encyclopedia was financed or ma- 
terially supported by The Rockefeller Foundation, The Carnegie 
Corporation, and The Russell Sage Foundation. It was a highly 
desirable venture. Objectively prepared, it could have taken a 
proud and meritorious place in our library of basic reference 
books. The objectivity which was essential to its propriety as a 
foundation-supported project, however, was markedly missing in 
the product which was turned out. 

I do not suggest that the foundations which financed the project 
should have censored it or in any way controlled its production. 
I do suggest that they should have made sure that those who 
would edit and create it would have the necessary objectivity. 
This they failed to do. 

The key man in editing the Encyclopedia , apparently, was Dr. 
Alvin Johnson, an associate editor. Dr. Johnson was a teacher of 
economics, who had been the editor of the New Republic, a co- 
founder of the New School for Social Research, and an experi- 
enced rewrite man and editor of several other encyclopedic pub- 
lications. He had been employed by The Carnegie Corporation in 
its public-library program and by The Carnegie Endowment to 
write a piece, before World War I, on the interest of the labor 
organizations in peace. He had a flair for catering to the guilt 
feelings of the rich and to the reform ideas of the foundation 

His patron at Columbia University, Professor Seeligman, a 
wealthy supporter of the social sciences, became the nominal head 


of The Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. He lined up a glit- 
tering advisory board and the support of foundations and of a 
number of professional societies which were then not yet tainted 
by the ascendancy of a ruling, socialist clique. The Encyclopedia 
enterprise served to create a spirit of common work and common 
goals among these professional societies. Alvin Johnson, a man 
of wit and shrewd tenacity, became the guiding spirit of the 
venture. There is little doubt that his association with the enter- 
prise contributed to enabling the propagandists of the left to 
influence the minds of successive generations of opinion molders 
in public affairs. 

In his autobiography, Dr. Johnson boasts: 

In enlisting assistant editors I forebore all inquiry about 
infection with Marx. Like the common cold, Marx was in 
the air, sometimes cutting editorial efficiency but not ir- 
remediably. Although I have always regarded myself as a 
self-effacing scholar, I meant to keep the encyclopedia un- 
der my hand. * * * I had two assistant editors who as- 
serted that they were Socialists. That was nothing to me; 
they were good and faithful workers. And one was so con- 
siderate of my reactionary bent as to inform me that a new 
editor I had taken on was a Communist. I sent for him. 
“Yes” he said M I was once a Communist. The name by 
which I go is not my real name.” He gave me his real 
name, which had figured in press accounts of rows in the 
Communist party. “And so” he said “you are going to fire 
me.” “Certainly not. You are here to do a specific editorial 
job. Your private political views are your own business. You 
can't import them into any work you do for me. But you 
exhibit the frankness of a gentleman and a scholar. All I 
ask of you is that if ever you feel it your moral duty to 
slap a little Communist color on your work, you will re- 
sign." That he promised, and he kept his promise.* 

Pioneers Program, Viking Press, 195a, p. 311. 


Dr. Johnson did not make similar reservations regarding So- 
cialist bias. I quote at length from his book because the attitude 
of this recipient-dispenser of foundation money is so characteristic 
of the past attitudes of foundation executives. It has been as if, 
come the revolution, they wished to be sure of a certificate of good 
conduct from Communist scholars. They treated them with kid 
gloves, overlooking the primacy of their party allegiance. Dr. 
Johnson may not today be a Socialist himself, but while he was 
working on the Encyclopedia, his attitude toward ex-Communist 
and Socialist gentlemen did much to influence American teachers 
(and opinion leaders influenced by social-science teachers) with 
socialist ideas. 

Dr. Johnson’s incomprehensible attitude, that the political bias 
of an editor of an encyclopedia of the social sciences was of no 
moment, played its part in the unfortunate result. The Encyclo- 
pedia contains a large number of articles written by Communists, 
fellow travelers and Socialist partisans generally. The Reece 
Committee report gave a partial list of such articles, as follows*: 

The article on The Rise of Liberalism was written by 
Harold J. Laski, a British socialist. He also did the articles 
on Bureaucracy, Democracy, Judiciary: Liberty: Social Con- 
tract: and Ulyanov, Vladimir llich [Lenin]. 

Atheism , Modern Atheism was written by Oscar Jassi, 
a socialist of Hungarian origin. Bolshevism was written by 
Maurice Dobb, an English radical. Capitalism, by Werner 
Sombart, a socialist who became affiliated with the Nazis. 

Communism was written by Max Beer, a Marxian of the 
University of Frankfurt, Germany. Communist Parties was 
written by Lewis L. Lorwin, whose views may be gleaned 
from this statement in the article: “The view common in the 
United States that the Communists are either cranks or 
criminals is largely a reflection of a conservative outlook.’* 
He also wrote the article on Exploitation . 

Corporation, written by two New Dealers, Adolph A. 

p P- 92-93- 


Berle, Jr., and Gardiner C. Means, clearly reveals their bias 
at that time. (Mr. Berle has since written The 20th Cen- 
tury Capitalist Revolution and repudiated some of his 
former views regarding corporations.) They say that the cor- 
poration may well equal or exceed the state in power: “The 
law of corporations, accordingly, might well be considered 
as a potential constitutional law for the new economic state: 
while business practice assumes many of the aspects of ad- 
ministrative government.” 

Criticism, Social , was produced by Robert Morss Lovett, 
of wide Communist front associations. Education, History, 
was produced by George S. Counts, a radical educa- 
tor * * * Fabianism was written by G. D. H. Cole, a 
British socialist. He also wrote the article on Industrial- 
ism. Fortunes , Private, Modern Period, prepared by Lewis 
Corey, is easily recognizable as a Marxist analysis. 

Freedom of Speech and of the Press was written by Robert 
Eislcr of Paris, who destroys the Christian ethic with this au- 
thoritative pronouncement: “No one today will consider the 
particular ethical doctrine of modern, or for that matter of 
ancient, Christianity as self-evident or natural or as the 
morality common to all men. The modern relativist theory 
of values has definitely shattered the basis on which such ar- 
tificial churches as the various ethical societies orders rested.” 

Government, Soviet Russia was prepared by Otta Hoetzsch 
of the University of Berlin who gives us kind thoughts about 
the Soviets— for example: “Although the elections are sub- 
ject to pressure of Communist dictatorship, this workers ' 
democracy is not entirely a fiction/' [Emphasis ours.] 

The article on Labor-Capital Co-Operation is credited 
to J. B. S. Hardman, whose Communist front affiliations are 
recorded in Appendix, Part IX of the Dies Committee 
Reports, 78th Congress (1944). He also wrote Labor Par- 
ties, General, United States, Masses and Terrorism . Laissez- 
Faire is the product of the socialist, G. D. H. Cole; his job 
was done with a hatchet. Large Scale Production, by My- 


ron W. Watkins, is an attack on the production methods of 
Big Business. 

Morals is the product of Horace M. Kallen, whose ex- 
tensive Communist-front associations are a matter of record. 
Philosophy was produced by Horace B. Davis, with ex- 
Communist-front associations (See Appendix IX). Political 
Offenders, by Max Lerner, a radical, contains a diatribe 
against the treatment of political offenders. Political Police 
is by Roger N. Baldwin, recorded by Appendix IX as 
having Communist-front associations. Power, Industrial, by 
Hugh Quigley, seems to be a plea for more control of 
business. Proletariat is by Alfred Meusel of Germany and 
seems to admire the Soviet system in Russia, 

Social Work, General Discussion, Social Case Work, is 
the work of a Communist-fronter, Philip Klein. Socialism was 
written by a socialist, Oscar Janski,* It is not unsympathetic 
to Communism, 

Stabilization, Economic, was written by George Soule, 
of extensive Communist-front affiliations. It expresses doubt 
that “stabilization' 1 can be accomplished under our present 
order. Strikes and Lockouts is by John A, Fitch, of wide 
Communist-front affiliations. Vested Interests is the work 
of Max Lerner. 

One of the theses in Woman, Position in Society, by the 
Communist-fronter, Bernhard J. Stern, is that we are not 
doing right by our women, while the Soviets are, 

This list is not inclusive. Many more instances of radical selec- 
tion could be given, plus the multitude of articles by moderately 
slanted writers. 

The Committee report commented furtherf: 

What is amazingly characteristic of the Encyclopedia is 
the extent to which articles on “left’ 1 subjects have been 

•This name was misspelled in the Committee Report. It should be Oskar 
Jaszy. (See also page m), 

+p. 93. 


assigned to leftists; in the case of the subjects to the "right," 
leftists again have been selected to describe and expound 
them. This is reminiscent of the reviews in the New York 
Times of books on China, in which both pro-and-con- 
Communist volumes were assigned to pro-Communists for 

Dr. Johnson has been very adroit in giving the appearance of 
objectivity at the same time that he has promoted his own brand 
of social criticism and reform. While Dr. Johnson was associated 
with the New School for Social Research in New York City, the 
well-known Mexican Communist painter Orozco was selected to 
paint murals on the walls of a large hall in the school building. 
The final paintings, sketches of which must have been submitted 
in advance, prominently present Lenin, Stalin, and marching 
Soviet soldiers. Dr. Johnson defended these murals on the theory 
that they were not intended as propaganda but were symbols of 
the time. He did not explain why pictures of equally detestable 
characters, also characteristic of the time, such as Hitler and Mus- 
solini, were not depicted. Surely, if the idea was to present Lenin 
and Stalin as examples of the horrors of the time, Hitler and Mus- 
solini would have been at least as eminent examples. If the idea 
was merely to depict the revolutionary movements of the era, then, 
after all, the movements of Hitler and Mussolini were revolution- 
ary also, It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Hitler and 
Mussolini were omitted because they were examples of horror 
and Lenin and Stalin were depicted because they were deemed 
not to be, 


The foundation-fostered approach to research in the social sci- 
ences, with its "social goals" to which Dr. Carl O. Sauer (profes- 
sor of geography at the University of California,) referred, in 
addressing The Social Science Research Council, tends strongly 
to the left politically. Professor Hobbs so testified and gave many 
examples. The Committee accumulated a mass of supporting ma- 


terial. Even the Cox Committee had before it indications that this 
contention of leftward direction is correct. A long and brilliant 
statement was attached to the Hearings of the Cox Committee* 
but was apparently ignored in its conclusions. It was prepared by 
Mark M. Jones, a consulting economist who had been an adviser 
to private philanthropy for over thirty years. Mr. Jones wrote: 

From the standpoint of, the objects supported by founda- 
tions, it seems clear that projects classified in the field of 
the social sciences have been most subject to doubt with 
respect to the public interest. This is largely because most 
of such projects have been executed by educational and 
charitable agencies. Many educational agencies appear to 
have been so intolerant even of the idea of profits that they 
naturally inclined toward means and measures not for 
profit. This inclination, of course, led many into collectivist 
channels of thought and action, probably without realization 
of ,what was happening. When the sophistries of John 
Maynard Keynes came along, they fell on receptive ground 
and were quickly made fashionable largely because of this 
attitude. We now have so-called social sciences under the 
aegis of education which are collectivist in character more 
than anything else . They represent too much socialism and 
not enough science . [Emphasis supplied.] 

Mr. Jones also said: 

From the standpoint of the place of the foundation, the most 
important question falls in the category of omissions. I have 
not heard of giants from foundations or of activities car- 
ried on directly by them which have been particularly note- 
worthy from the standpoint of the improvement of the 
capitalistic system. * * * Foundations owe their existence 
to the capitalistic system. 

Cox Committee Hearings, p. 767 et seq. 


Professor Rowe, in his Reece Committee testimony, contrib- 
uted these comments concerning the leftward slant of so much 
foundation-supported social-science research: 

I think that the development of the social sciences in this 
country in the last 40 or 50 years has been very heavily in- 
fluenced, in my opinion, by ideas imported from abroad, 
which have been connected with, if not originated in, 
socialistic mentality, and to say this is to simply say that it 
is normal in social science to accept today a great deal of 
economic determinism, to accept a great deal of emphasis 
upon empirical research over and against basic thinking and 
the advancement of theory, and to accept a lot of ideas 
about the position of the social scientist in the society that 
seem to me rather alien to the American tradition. 

I think it must be kept in mind that the theory of social 
engineering is closely related to the notion of the elite 
which we find dominant in Marxism, the notion that a few 
people are those who hold the tradition and who have 
the expertness and that these people can engineer the 
people as a whole into a better way of living , whether they 
like it or ivant it or not . It is their duty to lead them forc- 
ibly so to speak in this direction , 

That is all tied up with the conviction of the Marxists that 
they seem to have, rather that they do have, a perfect social 
science. This is one of the main tenets of Marxism, that they 
have a social science which is perfect; it not only explains 
all the past history, but it will lead to the complete victory 
of the socialist state on a worldwide basis. 

I am not maintaining that my colleagues are all dyed in the 
wool along this line, but there is such a thing as infection. 
I think some of these ideas have infected us, and have gotten 
over into a much more influential place in our thinking 
than many of us understand or realize. The complete re- 
spectability of some of the basic ideas I have been talking 


about in the framework of American intellectual life can 
be seen when you ask yourself the question, "When I was 
in college, what was I taught about the economic interpreta- 
tion of history, the frontier interpretation of American 
history, the economic basis of the American Constitution, 
and things of this kind?” 

This is the entering wedge for the economic analysis of 
social problems which is related to economic determinism, 
which is the very heart and soul of the Marxist ideology. 
When we reflect on the extent to which these ideas have 
become accepted in the American intellectual community, 
I think we ought to be a bit alarmed, and be a bit hesitant 
about the direction in which we are going. 

For my own purposes, I would much rather complicate the 
analysis of social phenomena by insisting that at all times 
there are at least three different kinds of components that 
have to be taken into account. There is not only the basic 
economic thing. We all recognize its importance. But there 
are what I call political factors. These have to do with the 
fundamental presuppositions people have about the values 
that they consider important and desirable. These can be 
just as well related to abstract and to absolute truth, which 
we are all trying to search for in our own way, as they can 
be to economic formation and predetermination, if I make 
myself clear. Along with this you have to take into account 
the power element in the military field. If you throw all 
these things in together, I think it rather tends to scramble 
the analysis and reduce it from its stark simplicity, as it is 
embodied in the doctrines of communism, into something 
which is much harder to handle and much more difficult 
and complicated, but is a good deal closer to the truth. 
I make this rather long statement only because the subject 
is extremely complicated. I know I can't discuss it ade- 
quately here, and I don’t pretend to try, but I am trying to 
introduce a few of the things which give me the feeling 
that in our academic community as a whole we have gone 


down the road in the direction of the dominance of an in- 
tellectual £lite. We have gone down the road in the direction 
of economic determination of everything, throwing abstract 
values out of the window.* 


Professor Kenneth Colegrove joined those scholars who asserted 
that foundation-supported social-science research had overempha- 
sized the empirical method and that this resulted in leftist mate- 
rialism, a decline of morality, and a declining respect for American 
traditions. He attributed this in part to an overinterest in things 

* * * I think there has been unfortunately a tendency on 
the part of the foundations to promote research that is 
pathological in that respect, that is pointing out the bad 
aspects of American government, American politics, Amer- 
ican society, and so on, instead of emphasizing the good 

And he said that such research had been used as a “cloak for 

If you are going to study the pathological aspects, the 
natural tendency of human nature * * * is to find out how 
to cure it, how to alleviate it, and so on. And if the foun- 
dations contribute overmuch to pathological studies, and not 
sufficiently to the studies with reference to the soundness 
of our institutions, there would be more conclusions on the 
pathological side than there would be conclusions on the 
sounder traditional side of American government, American 
history, and so on. That would inevitably follow.” J 

This insistence, fostered by the foundations, on finding things 
at fault with America, has run through the entire foundation com- 

• Reece Committee Report, pp, 123-124, 
t Ibid., p. 116. 

X ?bid., p. 1 17. 


plex or concentration of power and has been greatly responsible, 
in Professor Colegrove’s judgment, for the distinct turn '‘to the 
left." He attributed to this the growing tendency in the American 
classroom to think "that intellectualism and liberalism or radi- 
calism were synonymous" and that a conservative "was not an 

Out of this "overemphasis on the constant need for reform" 
grew the concept of "social engineering," according to Professor 
Colegrove. And he offered these astute comments: 

Dr. Colegrove. That, of course, grows out of the over- 
emphasis on the constant need for reform. The assumption 
is that everything needs reform, that unless you are reform- 
ing you are not progressing. I think it is in large part due to 
the failure of the foundations, the failure of many of the 
scholars they choose, to fully understand what the principles 
of the American Constitution are, what the principles of 
American tradition are. Some of them, I know, do not ac- 
cept those principles as sound. They even attack the princi- 
ples. Of course, we all know that the principles should be 
examined and re-examined, But there is a tendency on 
the part of those who get grants from the foundations to 
think that they must turn out something in the way of 
reform; not a study which does not suggest a definite re- 
form but a study more like Myrdal’s study, The American 
Dilemma , which poses a condition in which there must be 

Mr. Wormser. Does that tendency to insist on reform 
in turn tend to attract the more radical type of scholar,, with 
the result that grants are made more generally to those 
considerably to the left? 

Dr. Colegrove. I think undoubtedly it does, especially 
in the cooperative research, where a large number of people 
cooperate or operate together on one research project. 


Mr. Wormser. Professor, back to this term, “social en- 
gineering, 1 ” again, is there not a certain presumption or 
presumptuousness, on the part of social scientists, to con- 
sider themselves a group of the £lite who are solely capable 
and should be given the sole opportunity to guide us in our 
social development? They exclude by inference, I suppose, 
religious leaders and what you might call humanistic lead- 
ers. They combine the tendency toward the self-generated 
social engineering concept with a high concentration of 
power in that interlocking arrangement of foundations and 
agencies, and it seems to me you might have something 
rather dangerous. 

Du. Colegrove. I think so. Very decisively. There is a 
sort of arrogance in a large number of people, and the ar- 
rogance of scholarship is in many cases a very irritating af- 
fair. But there is a tendency of scholars to become arrogant, 
to be contemptuous of other people’s opinions.* 


Two long articles on foundations by William H. Whyte, Jr., ap- 
peared in Fortune (October and November 1955) before the 
publication of his book, The Organization Man. One has only to 
read the first of these articles to understand that he is no friend of 
the Reece Committee and that he is a strong admirer of the major 
foundations. Yet his second article, entitled “Where the Founda- 
tions Fall Down/' is devoted almost entirely to a criticism of the 
tendency of the great foundations to indulge in mass research. 
The following quotations are from this latter article: 

In making grants, they channel the bulk of their money 
to large-scale team projects and programs, only a small part 
to the individual. This trend, furthermore, is self-perpetu- 
ating. Academics joke privately (and bitterly) that it’s 
easier to get $500,000 from a foundation than $5,000; un- 

• Ibid., p. 125. 


derstandably, many react by inflating their projects, and 
the more they do so, the more satisfied the foundations are 
that their way of giving is the proper way. 

* # * 

Here is the way they apportion the funds * * * 76 per 
cent of the total— goes to big team projects or institutions. 

♦ # * 

The majority of social scientists believe that the founda- 
tions wish to support (a) large projects, (b) mapped in 
great detail, (c) tailored to foundation interests. 

• * # 

Overblown projects usually turn out badly, but failure 
doesn't get advertised. Researchers are reluctant to tell the 
foundation they have been wasting its money; and even if 
nothing comes out of the project there is always the con- 
solation that the younger people got some good training. 
Occasionally researchers do confess failure but this is likely 
to be a disingenuous preface to asking for more money to 
reach the summit now in sight 

While foundation officials may know that nothing very 
important came of an overblown project, they demonstrate 
no sense of a far more negative effect, i.e., the waste of the 
scholar’s time and energies in what ought to be his most 
productive years. This is the true blight and it affects the 
big men in the research field quite as much as the new- 

• « • 

Even when they want to do some small, independent re- 
search of their own, top men often have great trouble get- 
ting money for it. 

# # # 

There is, too, the "lone wolf," the man who insists on 
pursuing his own, independent course. By and large, foun- 
dations dismiss him as no problem. 


These are serious indictments of the “projectitis” which has be- 
set the great foundations, wasteful of precious talent, tending to 
create conformity and uniformity, repressing individual initiative, 
destructive of that intellectual independence which is the most 
valuable possession of the academician. 

Mr. Dwight Macdonald, in his book The Ford Foundation was 
perhaps even stronger in his condemnation of the foundations for 
their emphasis on mass research. He said: 

An inevitable, and depressing, question is: What is the 
practical effect of the towering mass of research that Ford 
and the other foundations have erected with their millions? 
Does anybody read their findings — can anybody read them? 

* * * 

But while the work of a single scholar may sometimes 
achieve the intellectual, and even aesthetic, interest that 
a literary or philosophical production has, and so have a 
legitimate claim to be judged as an end in itself, rather than 
as merely a means toward some other end, this almost 
never happens with the products of modern collective re- 

Mr. Macdonald quoted Abraham Flexner as saying in his 
Funds and Foundations: “Who reads these books?”; Einstein as 
saying: “I am a horse for a single harness, not cut out for tandem 
or team-work; for well I know that in order to attain any definite 
goal, it is imperative that one person should do the thinking and 
commanding.”; and Elbridge Sibley, studying the lone-wolf re- 
searcher’s needs for The Social Science Research Foundation, as 
saying; “No effective substitute has been or is likely to be found 
for the individual human mind as an instrument for making fun- 
damental new discoveries,” 

Professor Rowe, in testifying previously before the McCarran 
Committee, was asked whether he knew of any efforts by founda- 

* P. 106, 


tions to “integrate studies and to bring about unanimity of agree- 
ment on any particular subject.” This led to the following testi- 

From my point of view , the foundations and these re- 
search organizations like the Institute of Pacific Relations 
have gone hog xvild on the coordination of research . They 
have committed themselves so thoroughly to coordination 
of research that in fact instead of supporting a great variety 
of research projects, which would enrich the American in- 
tellectual scene through variegation, zohich is a value I very 
basically believe in, you have a narrowing of emphasis, a con- 
centration of power, a concentration of authority, and an 
impoverishment of the American intellectual scene . 

# * * 

Now, as I said, I am off on a hobbyhorse at this point. But 
it is of particular interest, because by exercising power 
over research in this way, you see, by insisting on the in- 
tegration of research activity, anybody who wants to, can 
control the results of research in American universities . 
And 1 think this is a very questionable business that the 
public ought to look at very, very closely, and see whether 
they want a few monopolies of the money, like, for instance, 
the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Corp>, who have 
done immense amounts of good, to emphasize narrow con- 
centration to the extent that they have , 

# # # 

I often say that if we try to become as efficient as the really 
efficient, supposedly, people, the dictators, then we destroy 
American scholarship and everything that it stands for. 
And I often wonder whether my colleagues realize who won 
the last war. Intellectually speaking, this countxy has a 
great danger of intellectually hying to imitate the totalitar- 


ian approach, in allowing people at centers of financial 
power — they aren't political powers in this sense— to tell the 
public what to study and what to work on, and to set up a 

Now, of course, as you know, scholars like freedom. Maybe 
they come up with a lot of useless information. But in 
my value standard, as soon as we diminish the free exercise 
of unhampered curiosity, free curiosity, by channeling our 
efforts along this line, we then destroy the American men- 
tality. Because the great feature of the American mentality 
is the belief in allowing people to rush off in all kinds of 
different directions at once. Because we don't know what is 
absolutely right. You can't tell that far in advance, 

* # # 

If I may just continue one moment more, Senator, I would 
like to point out to you that Adolf Hitler very effectively 
crippled atomic research in Germany by telling the physicists 
what he wanted them to come up with. Now, this is true. 
And if you can do that in atomic physics, you can do it 
10 times as fast in the so-called social sciences which really 
aren’t sciences at all, where really opinion, differentiation 
of opinion, is the thing that matters and what we stand for 
in this country. 

That is why I become very much inflamed when I even 
Smell the first hint of a combination in restraint of trade in 
the intellectual sphere. 

Now, you see what I am talking about with this interlock- 
ing directorate? That is what bothers me about it. I don’t 
mind if the boys go off and have a club of their own. That is 
their own business. But when you get a tie-in of money, 
a tie-in of the promotion of monographs , a tie-in of research , 
and a tie-in of publication, then I say that the intellectuals 
are having the reins put on them and blinders. 

Senator Watkins. Otherwise, they do not get on the 


Mr. Rowe. That is right. They don't get on the team, and 
they don’t get a chance to carry the ball. 

Now to the faculty member, this means money, income, 
what he lives on. It is vital. It is not just some recrea- 
tional thing, you see, 

# * # 

And, of course , remember this. The foundation people have 
to have jobs . They have to have something to administer . 
They don't want to give aivay the money to the universities 
and say “Go ahead and spend it any way you want They 
want to see that the activity pays . That is, we have got to 
have a regular flow of the so-called materials of research 
coming out. We want to see this flow in certain quantity. 
It has to have a certain weight in the hand. And to see that 
this happens, we do not just give it to a university xohere 
they are going to allow any Tom, Dick and Harry of a 
professor to do his own thinking. “No, we want an integra- 
tion ” 

* * # 

Senator Watkins. I take it that is a pretty good plea for 
the university as against the foundation. 

Mr. Rowe. Absolutely. And, as a matter of fact, I couldn't 
find a better illustration of the dangers of consistently 
over the years donating very large sums of money to organ- 
izations, you see, for research purposes, than is involved in 
the very Institute of Pacific Relations itself . It is a fine il- 
lustration of the fact that power corrupts, and the more 
power you get the more corrupt you get* 

In testifying before the Reece Committee, Professor Rowe re- 
peated his deep concern over the tendency of the great founda- 
tions to create guided research projects instead of supporting the 
individual researcher in whatever direction he wished to go. His 
best illustration was that of the study, financed by The Rocke- 

• Reece Committee Report , p. 41 el seq. Emphasis supplied. 


feller Foundation, to the extent of some $200,000, of the Taiping 
Rebellion, which occurred in China in the 19th century. This 
project concentrated the efforts of a considerable group of compe- 
tent researchers on a subject which had very limited value. Pro- 
fessor Rowe testified: 

I thought that in view of the scarcity of human resources 
and the need for general training on Far Eastern matters, 
that this was focusing it down pretty fine. It is a wonderful 
project from the point of view of research. If you believe 
in gadgetry, this had all the gadgets you will ever want to 
find. If you believe that the best way to promote research 
is to pick out highly trained and able people and set them 
free in a general field, like Chinese studies, to follow their 
own interests wherever they may lead them, then you see 
this is the very opposite of that kind of thing. It does achieve 
a certain kind of mechanical efficiency, it seems to me, at 
the expense of inhibiting the kind of thing that Mr. Hays 
was talking about, namely, the freedom of the individual 
to go down any number of blind alleys he wants to go down 
in the free pursuit of his curiosity, in the interests of 
honestly trying to come up with important things.* 
Professor Rowe illustrated another aspect of the tendency by 
foundations to organize research according to predetermined 
plans. He cited the attempt by The Carnegie Corporation to in- 
duce Yale University "to eliminate the work we were doing in the 
far-eastern field and to concentrate our work on the southeast 
Asian field." His testimony proceeded: 

The only reason for my giving you this incident in some* 
what detail is to indicate what I consider to be a real 
tendency in foundations today — in some foundations, not all 

• Ibid., p. 80. In his teslimony before the McCarran Committee, Professor 
Rowe, referring to the Taiping project, had said: “This kind of thing is 
supported by foundation money. And, of course, the temptation is to bring 
everybody in and integrate, through a genteel process of bribery. That is to 
say, you support the student, you give him a fellowship, if he will buy your 
subject matter area." 


— to adopt a function of trying to rationalize higher educa- 
tion and research in this country along the lines of the great- 
est so-called efficiency. I used the word “so-called” there de- 
signedly, because in my view, the notion that educational and 
research and scholarly efficiency can be produced this way in 
a democratic society is unacceptable. It seems to me that in 
a democratic society we have to strive for the greatest pos- 
sible variegation and differentiation as between universities 
along these lines, and the suggestion that any one university 
should more or less monopolize one field or any few universi- 
ties monopolize one field, and give the other fields to others 
to do likewise with, it is personally repugnant to me. It does 
not jibe with my notion of academic freedom in the kind of 
democratic society that I believe in.* 

As Professor Rowe put it: "What * * * is a professor to think 
when people with money come along and tell his university that 
what he is doing there is useless and ought to be liquidated, be- 
cause it is being done much better some place else?” 

• lb!d., p. 35. 




A very powerful complex of foundations and allied organiza- 
tions has developed over the years to exercise a high degree of 
control over education. Part of this complex, and ultimately re- 
sponsible for it, are the Rockefeller and Carnegie groups of foun- 
dations. The largest of the foundation giants, The Ford Founda- 
tion, is a late comer. It has now joined in the complex and its im- 
pact is tremendous; but the operations of the Carnegie and Rocke- 
feller groups start way back. 

There is little question that the initial efforts of the Car- 
negie and Rockefeller foundations in the field of education pro- 
duced substantial and salutary results. Certainly the standards of 
our institutions of higher learning were materially improved as 
a result of the early work of these foundations. Yet the Reece 
Committee questioned whether their actions were wholly com- 
mendable. The reason for this doubt was that coercive methods 
were used. 

Dr. Ernest Victor Hollis, now Chief of College Administration 
in the United States Office of Education, once explained the back- 
ground of this coercive approach as follows: 

* * * Unfavorable public estimate of the elder Rocke- 
feller and Andrew Carnegie, made it inexpedient in 1905 



for their newly created philanthropic foundations to at- 
tempt any direct reforms in higher education.* 

The method used, therefore, he said, was one of indirection— 
“indirectly through general and non-controversial purposes.” “For 
instance,” said Dr. Hollis, “there is little connection between giv- 
ing a pension to a college professor or giving a sum to the general 
endowment of his college, and reforming entrance requirements, 
the financial practices, and the scholastic standards of his institu- 
tion ” Yet one was tied to the other. It was a case of conform, or no 
grantl When to conform meant bathing in a stream of millions, 
college and university administrators and their faculties were in- 
clined to conform. 

About this type of coercion the Committee report said: 

We question, however, whether foundations should have 
the power even to do good in the coercive manner which 
was employed. We cannot repeat too often that power in 
itself is dangerous. What may have been used for a benign 
purpose could in the future be used for the promotion of 
purposes against the interests of the people. It does not 
write off this danger to say that good men ran the founda- 
tions. It is power which is dangerous — power uncontrolled 
by public responsibility, f 

Merely to recognize the satisfactory results of benign coercion, 
to point to the highly desirable academic reforms for which this 
coercion was responsible, is not enough. Such a mistake was 
made by those who lauded the internal reforms of fascism in 
Italy and ignored the cost in freedom and liberty. Power is in it- 
self dangerous. When we make it possible for financial power to 
exercise substantial control over education, we endanger our wel- 
fare. Perhaps the risk is worth taking in order to preserve freedom 
of action to foundations. But we should be conscious of the risk, 

• Reece Committee Report , p. 134. 

’flbid.j p. 135. 


and alert to what transpires. The Walsh Committee had heard 
witnesses testify to the fact that colleges had abandoned their re- 
ligious affiliations in or before 1915 to conform to requirements 
established by foundations! Today, school policymakers an- 
ticipate the idiosyncrasies and preferences of foundation officials 
in a manner similarly producing conformity. 

Consider what The Ford Foundation could do with its billions 
of capital. It could use this monumental fund to promote what- 
ever educational theories a Dr. Hutchins of the moment were to 
persuade the trustees to support.* Nor need it be difficult for such 
promotion to succeed. The country is full of colleges and uni- 
versities starving for endowment. The number of miserably paid 
academicians is legion. Professors have to eat; and universities 
have to pay their janitors. While it is possible that the majority of 
academicians and administrators would resist, their aggregate 
voices would not be as powerful as those of a minority of acad- 
emicians subsidized in the publication of their writings, and a 
minority of administrators whose institutions flowered financially. 
How difficult to resist if pressure for change in educational con- 
cepts were accompanied by a persuasive flow of hundreds of mil- 
lions, or even billions! f 

• I happen to support some of Dr. Hutchins’s educational theories. The fact 
is, however, that he was a power in The Ford Foundation and did promote 
his own theories with its tax-exempt money. Whether his theories arc right 
or wrong is beside the point, That the power which he exercised in educa- 
tional circles could exist through the tax-exempt foundation vehicle is a 
serious matter. 

fit is encouraging that some educators, even at schools which have enjoyed 
special foundation patronage, are beginning to complain against foundations 
directing education and educational research. Just before this book was sent 
to the press, there appeared in the New York World Telegram a report of 
a lecture delivered by Dean Stephen M. Corey of Teachers College, at Colum- 
bia University, in which he is reported to have complained that "Philan* 
thropic foundations are beginning to shackle educational institutions in their 
research projects by depriving them of a free hand in deciding the areas to 
be looked into." “Decision-making," said the Dean, is being taken out of the 
hands of the educators. 

The report quotes Dean Corey as follows: 

It is probably worth noting that within the past few years there seems 
to have been a decrease in the disposition of foundations to make 
giants to institutions that had independently arrived at judgments re- 
garding the research they wanted to do. Foundations as donors are 


There is much evidence that, to a substantial degree, founda- 
tions have become the directors of education in the United States. 
To what extent this has been brought about by conditions 
attached to financial support since the early activities of the Car- 
negie and Rockefeller foundations, it is difficult to assess. We do 
know that their first efforts to reform the colleges were only a be- 

Accrediting organizations and other instruments in the form 
of civic, professional, and school associations were created or sup- 
ported to implement the reform plans of these two foundation 
groups. The American Council on Education became their major 
executive agency. Other clearing-house organizations, operating 
variously in higher, secondary, and primary education, and later in 
the field of “adult education,” received heavy support. Among 
them were The National Education Association and associated 
groups, The Progressive Education Association, The John Dewey 
Society, The National Council on Parent Education, and The 
American Youth Commission. 

While the results of the first phase of foundation operations in 
education were entirely beneficial, that cannot be said of later 
stages. Together with an enormous amount of benefit, the founda- 
tions were responsible, as well, for much that has had a decidedly 
deleterious effect upon our society. 

Research and experimental stations were established at selected 
universities, notably Columbia, Stanford, and Chicago. Here some 
of the worst mischief in recent education was born. In these 
Rockefeller-and-Carnegie-established vineyards worked many of 

coming more and more frequently to designate the problems that they 
want studied as a result of their gifts. 

The Dean was reported as saying that the trend of the foundations to set 
the pitch "was most clearly Illustrated by operations of the Ford Founda- 
tion and its subsidiaries. He said they sought out research institutions to go 
into ‘problems or practices that the officials thought critical'." — "A 'pathetic* 
consequence, in the dean's opinion, has been the great amount of time spent 
by university personnel developing data that conforms to the ‘real ot fancied 
interests of the foundation or government agency.' This, he observed, ‘tends 
to remove the decision-making on research, that should be done, from the 
persons who aTe most intimately involved in the research, the investigators 
themselves.' " 


the principal characters in the story of the suborning of American 
education. Here foundations nurtured some of the most ardent 
academic advocates of upsetting the American system and sup- 
planting it with a Socialist state. 


Whatever its earlier origins or manifestations, there is little doubt 
that the radical movement in education was accelerated by an or- 
ganized Socialist movement in the United States. In 1905 The 
Intercollegiate Socialist Society was created under the direction of 
Jack London, Upton Sinclair, and others for the active promotion 
of socialism. It established branches in many major colleges and 
universities, where leaders were developed who were to have con- 
siderable future influence; among them were Bruce Bliven, Freda 
Kirchwey, (Senator) Paul Douglas, Kenneth Macgowan, Isa- 
dor Lubin, Evans Clark, and John Temple Graves, Jr. Robert 
Morss Lovett, a man with a total of 56 Communist-front affilia- 
tions,* became the first president of the Society. Stuart Chase, 
selected by The Social Science Research Council to write the 
showpiece on the achievements of social scientists, was an early 
writer for this organization. This Society was no transient or- 
ganization. It still exists and operates today as a tax-exempt foun- 
dation, having changed its name some years ago to The League 
for Industrial Democracy.f 

The movement generated or accelerated by the League was 
likened to the Fabian Socialist movement in England by Mr. 
Aaron Sargent, one of the witnesses before the Reece Committee. 
Mr. Sargent is a lawyer who has had considerable experience in 
special investigations and research in education and subversion. 
He had been a consultant to the Senate Internal Security Com- 
mittee in 1952 and represented patriotic organizations in nu- 
merous public hearings concerned with educational and other 
tax-exempt activities. At the Reece hearings, Mr. Sargent cited 
Fabianism in Great Britain, a book by Sister Margaret Patricia 

• Reece Committee Hearing*, pp. 221-224. 

t It will be discussed in some detail in the following chapter. 


McCarran, daughter o£ the later Senator McCarran, in which she 
described the gradual extension of influence of the Fabian idea. 
Mr, Sargent called the Socialist movement in America, that pro- 
pelled by The Intercollegiate Socialist Society, an offspring of the 
Fabian movement. 

The American movement seized upon some of the teachings of 
John Dewey, who, as Mr. Sargent put it, 

expounded a principle which has become destructive of 
traditions and has created the difficulties and the confusion, 
much of it, that we find today. Professor Dewey denied that 
there was any such thing as absolute truth, that everything 
was relative, everything was doubtful, that there were no 
basic values and nothing which was specifically true. 

Mr. Sargent added that, with this philosophy, 

* # * y 0U automatically wipe the slate clean, you throw 
historical experience and background to the wind and you 
begin all over again, which is just exactly what the Marxians 
want someone to do. 

This rejection of tradition carried with it an undermining of the 
doctrine of inalienable rights and the theory of natural law which 
underlie our system of government. It has become intrinsic in the 
"liberal” philosophy which assumed the Dewey point of view that, 
while there may be fundamental rights which are sacred, they are 
subject to constant review. In any event, proceeds this approach, 
some are not as sacred as others, whether or not they may be 
listed together in the Declaration of Independence and the orig- 
inal Constitution or its amendments. Certainly these "liberals 0 
believe that the right to private property is only a second-class 
right, or maybe third-class. 

Mr. Sargent very persuasively told the story of the growth of 
the radical movement in education, The Dewey philosophy took 
hold just about the time John D. Rockefeller established his first 
foundation. The General Education Board, in 1902. The era was 


one of reform agitation, and there is no doubt that much reform 
was needed in various directions. But the moderate and sensible 
reformers of the era were very often overwhelmed, and to some 
extent seduced, by a small army of Socialists, crypto-Socialists, 
and collectivists who took advantage of the necessary reform 
movement to propel their own radical philosophies and theories 
of government. These found grist for their mills in the teachings 
of John Dewey. As Mr. Sargent said, they took advantage "of 
the existing discontent to make considerable inroads in academic 

The National Education Association became enamored early of 
the Dewey philosophy. It was at Columbia University, however, 
the institution in which Professor Dewey taught so long, that per- 
haps the greatest strides were made in applying this philosophy 
to teaching. In 1916 the Department of Educational Research 
was established in Teachers College (part of Columbia Univer- 
sity). This department was responsible for the creation of The 
Lincoln School in 1917, which, to use the words of a Teachers 
College pamphlet, "kindled the fire which helped to spread pro- 
gressive education.” 

The same pamphlet* noted that John D. Rockefeller, through 
The International Education Board, donated $100,000 to estab- 
lish an International Institute at Teachers College. It noted as well 
that a Dr. George S. Counts had been made associate Director of 
the Institute, and Dr. Counts became one of the leading radicals 
in education. 

The growing radicalism which was beginning rapidly to per- 
meate academic circles was no grass-roots movement. Mr, Sar- 
gent cited a statement by Professor Ludwig Von Mises that so- 
cialism docs not spring from the masses but is instigated by intel- 
lectuals "that form themselves into a clique and bore from 
within and operate that way. * * * It is not a people’s move- 
ment at all. It is a capitalization on the people’s emotions and 
sympathies toward a point these people wish to reach.” 

* Reece Committee Report , pp. 147*149. 



Mr. Sargent gave convincing evidence that efforts to use the 
schools to bring us to a new order, collectivist in nature, followed 
a plan and that this plan was supported by foundation money. He 
cited the Conclusions and Recommendations of the Commission 
on Social Studies of The American Historical Association.* The 
American Historical Association is the professional association of 
historians and as such one of the organizations participating in 
The Social Science Research Council. The work of its Commis- 
sion was financed by The Carnegie Corporation to the extent of 
$340,000. The Conclusions was the last section of the Commis- 
sion’s final report, produced in 1934. It had an enormous and 
lasting impact upon education in our country. 

The Conclusions heralds the decline of capitalism in the United 
States. It does not oppose the movement for radical change. It ac- 
cepts it as inevitable: 

Cumulative evidence supports the conclusion, that, in the 
United States as in other countries, the age of individualism 
and laissez faire in economy and government is closing and 
that a new age of collectivism is emerging. [Emphasis sup- 

* Ibid., p. 137 et seq. In one of his speeches in Congress, Mr. Reece referred 
to a “conspiracy," and his use of this term brought down on his head the 
anger and ridicule of the "liberal” press. While the term was a strong one, 
Mr. Reece had some justification for using it. Since the preparation of my 
manuscript, a book has appeared, a reading of which leads one to the conclu- 
sion that there was, indeed, something in the nature of an actual conspiracy 
among certain leading educators in the United States to bring about socialism 
through the use of our school systems. (The book is Bending The Tu)ig, by 
Augustin C. Rudd, published in 1957 by The Heritage Foundation, Inc., a 
most admirable and illuminating work.) To the extent that the movement to 
suborn our schools was heavily financed by leading foundations, through the 
Lincoln School, the Progressive Education Association, the John Dewey So- 
ciety, units of the National Education Association, and other organizations, 
these foundations must be held largely accountable for the success of the 
movement. It is impossible to believe that the countless public utterances of 
some of these organizations and their leaders which made theiT program 
utterly clear, did not penetrate into the administrative consciousness of the 
managers of the foundations which subsidized them. 


But that is not all. It continues: 

As to the specific form which this “collectivism/’ this in- 
tegration and interdependence, is taking and will take in 
the future, the evidence at hand is by no means clear or un- 
equivocal. It may involve the limiting or supplanting of 
private property by public property or it may entail the 
preservation of private property, extended and distributed 
among the masses. Most likely, it will issue from a process 
of experimentation and will represent a composite of his- 
toric doctrines and social conceptions yet to appear. Almost 
certainly it will involve a larger measure of compulsory as 
well as voluntary cooperation of citizens in the conduct of 
the complex national economy, a corresponding enlargement 
of the functions of government, and an increasing state 
intervention in fundamental branches of economy previ- 
ously left to the individual discretion and initiative — a state 
intervention that in some instances may be direct and man- 
datory and in others indirect and facilitative. In any event 
the Commission is convinced by its interpretation of avail- 
able empirical data that the actually integrating economy 
of the present day is the forerunner of a consciously in- 
tegrated society in which individual economic actions and 
individual property rights will be altered and abridged. 
[Emphasis supplied.] 

# # # 

The emerging age is particularly an age of transition. It is 
marked by numerous and severe tensions arising out of the 
conflict between the actual trend toward integrated economy 
and society, on the one side, 'and the traditional practices, 
dispositions, ideas and institutional arrangements inherited 
from the passing age of individualism, on the other. In all 
the recommendations that follow, the transitional character 
of the present epoch is recognized. [Emphasis supplied.] 

# * # 


Underlying and illustrative of these tensions are privation 
in the midst of plenty, violations of fiduciary trust, gross 
inequalities in income and wealth, widespread racketeering 
and banditry, wasteful use of natural resources, unbalanced 
distribution and organization of labor and leisure, the har- 
nessing of science to individualism in business enterprise, 
the artificiality of political boundaries and divisions, the 
subjection of public welfare to the egoism of private in- 
terests, the maladjustment of production and consumption, 
persistent tendencies toward economic instability, dispro- 
portionate growth of debt and property claims in relation 
to production, deliberate destruction of goods and with- 
drawal of efficiency from production, accelerating tempo of 
panics, crises, and depressions attended by ever-wider de- 
struction of capital and demoralization of labor, struggles 
among nations for markets and raw materials leading to 
international conflicts and wars, 

The report of the Commission proceeds to say that we must 
make an “adjustment” between "social thought, social practice, 
and economic realities” or “sink back” into a primitive form of 
life. This adjustment must be made, apparently, in some col- 
lectivist manner, for the report, continuing, says that there are 
many varied theories to use, “involving wide differences in modes 
of distributing wealth, income, and cultural opportunities.” I have 
italicized the verb “distributing,” which forcefully disclosed the 
collectivist, planned economy objectives of the authors of the re- 

Cut no inferences regarding their intention are needed. They 
were utterly frank in their recommendations. Teachers must “free 
the school from the domination of special interests and convert it 
into a truly enlightened force in society.” And the “board of ed- 
ucation” must have as its objective “to support a school program 
conceived in terms of the general luelfare and adjusted to the 
needs of an epoch marked by transition to some form of socialized 


economy ”* The Commission then discusses "the lines along 
which attacks can and will be made on the problem of applying 
its conclusions with respect to instruction in the social sciences.” 
And the “pay off 

As often repeated, the first step is to awaken and consoli- 
date leadership around the philosophy and purpose of ed- 
ucation herein expounded * # *.f 

This was a call to the teachers in America to condition our chil- 
dren to an acceptance of a new order in process of transition. As 
to the nature of this intended order, there can be no doubt. Pro- 
fessor Harold J. Laski, philosopher of British socialism, said of 
the Commission’s report: 


Mr. Sargent's comment upon the report, produced by Carnegie 
Corporation money, is highly significant: 

What these gentlemen propose to do is set forth in their 
chapter at the end talking about next steps. It says that it is 
first to awaken and consolidate leadership around the phi- 
losophy and purpose of education expounded in the re- 
port, That The American Historical Association in coopera- 
tion with the National Council on the Social Studies has 
arranged to take over the magazine, The Outlook, as a social 
science journal for teachers. That writers of textbooks are to 
be expected to revamp and rewrite their old works in ac- 
cordance with this frame of reference. That makers of pro- 
grams in social sciences in cities and towns may be expected 
to evaluate the findings. That it is not too much to expect 
in the near future a decided shift in emphasis from mechan- 

* Emphasis supplied, 
t Reece Committee Report , p. 139, 



ics and methodology to the content and function of courses 
in the social studies. That is the gist of it. 

This report became the basis for a definite slanting in the 
curriculum by selecting certain historical facts and by no 
longer presenting others, * * *.* 

Did The Carnegie Corporation denounce or renounce this call 
for a socialization of America? Indeed no. Its 1933*1934 Annual 
Report said this; 

* * # Both the educational world and the public at large 
owe a debt of gratitude both to the Association for hav- 
ing sponsored this important and timely study in a field 
of peculiar difficulty, and to the distinguished men and 
women who served upon the Commission.! 

This reaction of The Carnegie Corporation is most astounding. 
In his statement to the Reece Committee, Mr. Charles Dollard, 
the president of this foundation, contended that the Conclusions 
and Recommendations of the Commission on the Social Sciences 
do “not advocate socialism.” He said that what the authors were 
accepting was “not socialism. It was the New Deal.” He attrib- 
utes their attitude to widespread disillusionment concerning our 
economic system, prevalent during the years of depression. He 
makes the further apology that once the funds had been granted, 
the Foundation did not have “the power to censor or rewrite the 
works produced under its grants.” He takes the position that 
“works will be supported by corporation (foundation) grants 
containing views that differ from those held by trustees and of- 

Mr. Dollard does not explain the commendatory remarks of 
the Carnegie foundation after the publication of the last volume of 
the Commission’s report. Nor does he convincingly absolve the 
foundation from responsibility for the Commission’s work. The 
grant was not one for scientific research, but one essentially for the 
development of new principles in education. As such, it supported 

• Ibid., p. 153. 

■{Ibid., p. 141, 


the formulation of a philosophical value system, based on a 
priori assumptions of goals of education and desirable forms of 
government and social organization. Such a system might well 
be supported by reference to facts in the manner in which Aris- 
totle’s Rhetorik advises the use of facts for the end of persuasion. 
But the basing of principles on a priori value concepts is meta- 
scientific. The work of the Commission was not a scientific search 
but an effort to persuade America in favor of a new ideal in pub- 
lic life and in education. The support of this project was essen- 
tially political. 

Mr, Dollard’s emphatic denial of the partisan-Socialistic char- 
acter of the Conclusions and Recommendations of the Commis- 
sion could mislead only those who had not read the work itself. 
He may attempt to identify the concepts of society contained in it 
as “New Deal,” and it is true that some of the Socialist convic- 
tions disseminated by the document were shared by the fathers 
of the New Deal. But the overlapping of the Socialist ideas of the 
Commission with the New Deal did not absolve the financial sup- 
porters of responsibility for this political undertaking. It is clearly 
desirable that foundations abstain from tampering with scientific 
research once a grant has been made to an unpolitical scientific 
organization. When, however, foundation money is offered for a 
program of a politico-social nature, responsibility for its impact on 
society cannot be dodged by a semantic manipulation of terms 
such as “socialism" and “New Deal." It is not the proper work of 
any foundation to promote the “New Deal” or any other political 

There was consistency in the position of Mr. Dollard in defend- 
ing the Commission’s work, in supporting the selection of Stuart 
Chase and of Dr. Myrdal, and in supporting The Encyclopedia 
of the Social Sciences after its bias became well known. It seems 
fair to conclude that this consistency had at its base a sympathy 
for the political objectives which these activities furthered. 

One may wonder how it came about that foundations such as 
Carnegie and Rockefeller, controlled by trustees whose member- 
ship was overwhelmingly conservative, could lend themselves to 


the radical movement in education. One answer I have already 
given: they left decisions far too often to subordinate employees 
and to intermediary organizations. Another is that they were to- 
tally unaware of the pitfalls in the projects which they financed. 
Foundation apologists explain it differently. They say that these 
foundations made grants to respectable organizations and for 
respectable purposes; having done so, they were obliged to keep 
their hands off; therefore, they cannot be held accountable for 
what was produced. 

This justification of foundation trustees cannot be accepted by 
reasonable persons. As I have pointed out, there is an obligation to 
make sure that objectivity would accompany the operation of a 
proposed grant. What is equally important — there is an obligation 
to examine the product and, if it is found to lack objectivity , to 
take means to protect the public against its effects . 

The trustees of The Carnegie Corporation were acting in a field 
in which they had only limited competence when they authorized 
the heavy grant which produced the report of the Commission on 
Social Studies. Granting, for the sake of argument, that they had 
the right, nevertheless, to take what risks to society were involved, 
their failure to repudiate the result was a dereliction of duty. 
Upon learning that this product was “an educational program for 
a Socialist America,” they might have offset whatever negligence 
or incompetence was connected with the creation of the project, 
by organizing another project, with at least equal financing, to be 
made by a group of eminent educators who believed that our 
governmental and economic system was worthy of preservation 
and that the schools should not be used as political propaganda 


The report of the Reece Committee referred to numbers of the 
educational £lite who supported and followed the plan laid down 
by the Carnegie-financed Commission on Social Studies. They 
were all, in various ways, connected with the educational complex 


supported by the millions of the Rockefeller, Carnegie, and other 

Among the favorites of this foundation-supported radical move- 
ment in education was Professor George S. Counts, a leader in the 
project to use the schools to reform our political and social order. 
A pamphlet entitled “A Call to the Teachers of the Nation/’ pub- 
lished by The Progressive Education Association, a tax-exempt 
organization largely supported by major foundations, was pre- 
pared by a committee of which Dr. Counts was Chairman. It 
included this “call”: 

The progressive minded teachers of the country must unite 
in a powerful organization militantly devoted to the build- 
ing of a better social order, in the defence of its members 
against the ignorance of the masses and the malevolence of 
the privileged. Such an organization would have to be 
equipped with the material resources, the talent, the legal 
talent, and the trained intelligence to wage successful war 
in the press, the courts, and the legislative chambers of the 
nation. To serve the teaching profession in this way should 
be one of the major purposes of the Progressive Education 

In one of his many radical books, Dare the School Build a New 
Social Order (John Day Company, 1932), Professor Counts said: 

That the teachers should deliberately reach for power and 
then make the most of their conquest is my firm conviction. 
To the extent that they are permitted to fashion the curricu- 
lum and the procedures of the school they will definitely and 
positively influence the social attitudes, ideals and behavior 
of the coming generation. 

He continued, that a “major concern” of teachers should be “op- 
posing and checking the forces of social conservatism and reac- 

•Ibid., p. 151. 


Another professor of education named in the Committee’s Re- 
port is Professor Theodore Brameld of New York University, who 
minced no words in an article in Science and Society: 

The thesis of this article is simply that liberal educators who 
look toward collectivism as a way out of our economic, 
political and cultural morass must give more serious con- 
sideration than they have thus far to the methodology of 
Marx * * * * 

Professor Brameld, along with Dr. Gunnar Myrdal, was 
among those “experts'* cited by the Supreme Court in the Brown 
v . Board of Education segregation decision, These are strange au- 
thorities for the Supreme Court to rely upon. That many men such 
as these (politicians in educators* clothing) have achieved such 
prominence may be laid closely at the door of foundation support. 

Another of these “educators" gives us an idea of how close they 
come to totalitarianism. In an article in The Progressive Education 
Magazine , Professor Norman Woelfel wrote: 

It might be necessary paradoxically for us to control our 
press as the Russian press is controlled and as the Nazi 
press is controlled.f 

Professor Woelfel felt strongly that the £lite in the social sci- 
ences should reform the world. His Moulders of the American 
Mind was dedicated to 

the teachers of America, active sharers in the building of 
attitudes, may they collectively choose a destiny which hon- 
ors only productive labor and promotes the ascendency of 
the common man over the forces that make possible an 
economy of plenty. | 

And, like so many of his kind, he is against tradition and against 
codes of morality. He wrote: 

* Ibid., p. 152. 

■\Jbid., p. 155. 

XI bid., p. 143. 


The younger generation is on its own and the last thing that 
would interest modem youth is the salvaging of the Chris- 
tian tradition. The environmental controls which technolo- 
gists have achieved, and the operations by means of which 
workers earn their livelihood, need no aid or sanction from 
God nor any blessing from the church. 

* * * 

In the minds of the men who think experimentally, America 
is conceived as having a destiny which bursts the all too 
obvious limitations of Christian religious sanctions and of 
capitalist profit economy.* 

Elsewhere he wrote: 

The call now is for the utmost capitalization of the discon- 
tent manifest among teachers for the benefit of revolutionary 
social goals. This means that all available energies of 
radically inclined leaders within the profession should be 
directed toward the building of a united radical front. 
Warm collectivistic sentiment and intelligent vision, prop- 
agated in clever and undisturbing manner by a few indi- 
vidual leaders no longer suits the occasion.f 

The educators of whom we speak were leaders in their field, 
prominent in the counsels of that most powerful organization 
of teachers, The National Education Association, which adver- 


Quotations already given from publications of the Progressive 
Education Association will indicate its character. Had it been de- 

• Ibid., p. 144. 
t Ibid ., p. 145. 

X Ibid .J p. 146. 


voted entirely to improving educational methods, it might have 
served a worthy purpose in education. Its leaders, however, were 
devoted not only to new methods of teaching (many of these 
methods, found to be entirely impractical, have since been aban- 
doned) but also to following the thesis of the Commission on So- 
cial Studies that educators must use the schools to indoctrinate 
youth into an acceptance of collectivism. Its periodical, The Social 
Frontier, of October, 1934, stated in an editorial, that it “accepts 
the analysis of the current epoch — outlined — in Conclusions and 
Recommendations, Report on the Social Studies of the Commis- 
sion of the American Historical Association.” 

Its sinews of war were supplied by foundations. Up to 1943# 
says the Reece Committee report, foundations had contributed 
$4,257,800 to this Association. What the aggregate figure is to 
date, I do not know. During its long and intense career, the Pro- 
gressive Education Association, which later changed its name to 
the American Education Fellowship, created an unenviable record 
of leftist propaganda. Its publications, called at various times 
The Social Frontier, Frontiers of Democracy, and Progressive Edu- 
cation, contain a long record of attempts to suborn our educa- 
tional system to an acceptance of radicalism. 

Typical is the issue of December 15, 1942, in which Profes- 
sor Harold Rugg, of Teachers College, Columbia University, 
contributed a “call to arms.” He announced the Battle for Con- 
sent. The “consent** was the consent of the people to change. His 
theory was simple. Education must be used to condition the peo- 
ple to accept social change. The social change was to be that, of 
course, espoused by Professor Rugg, involving a war against some 
of our most precious institutions. 


There were plenty of teachers ready to follow the lead of the 
American Historical Association’s Commission on Social Studies, 
and their efforts extended into all aspects of education. New text- 
books were required to take the place of the standard and objec- 
tive works used in the schools. These new books could be used to 


indoctrinate the students, to give them the pathological view of 
their country upon which sentiment for collectivism could be 
built. The writer of a conservative or classic textbook has difficulty 
getting the funds to enable him to produce his work. At best he 
must rely on an advance from a publisher, and it is rarely that 
even a slim one might be forthcoming. In contrast, a foundation- 
supported textbook writer, as a rule, can apply a substantial part 
of his time, or all of it, to his writing. Moreover, the very fact of 
foundation support (or the support of an intermediary distrib- 
uting organization) for his project, and the consequent inference 
of approval, will create a favorable climate of opinion for the 
acceptance of his work by schools. At least before the recent 
Congressional investigations, radical writers found it a simple 
matter to get foundation bounty. Under the influence of cliques 
in the world of teaching, the schools in the United States were 
flooded with books which disparaged the free-enterprise system 
and American traditions. 

The notorious Rugg textbooks were of this class. They were 
prepared by Professor Harold Rugg, who began, in the Lincoln 
Experimental School, financed by Rockefeller foundations, to 
issue pamphlets which grew into this scries of textbooks. Five 
million copies of the books were poured into American schools 
up to 1940 — how many since, I do not know. They were finally 
banned from the schools in the State of California after a panel 
of competent men appointed by the San Francisco Board of 
Education unanimously held them reprehensible. One of the rea- 
sons given by this panel was that these books promoted the thesis 
that “it is one of the functions of the schools, indeed it appears at 
the time to be the chief function, to plan the future of society. 
From this view we emphatically dissent/’ The panel’s report con- 

Moreover, the books contain a constant emphasis on our 
national defects. Certainly we should think it a great mis- 
take to picture our nation as perfect or flawless either in 
its past or in its present, but it is our conviction that these 


books give a decidedly distorted impression through over- 
stressing weaknesses and injustices. They therefore tend to 
weaken the student’s love for his country, respect for its 
past and confidence in its future, 

Mr. McKinnon, one of the panel, added that these books de- 
nied moral law; that Professor Rugg was trying to achieve “a so- 
cial reconstruction through education”; and that they promoted 
change as apparently desirable in itself, and “experiment” in gov- 
ernment, education, economics, and family life as of paramount 
importance. “Throughout the books,” he said, “runs an antire- 
ligious bias.” # 

Let us take a closer look at Professor Rugg. In his book Great 
Technology /f Rugg, who had visited China the previous year on 
a mission to prepare a “social reconstruction and education” proj- 
ect for that country, said: 

Can independent ways of living be carried on any longer on 
an irresponsible competitive basis? Must not central public 
control be imposed on the warring, self-aggrandizing cap- 
tains of industry? Can this control be set up with the consent 
of a large minority of the people quickly enough to fore- 
stall the imposition of dictatorship either by business lead- 
ers or by an outraged proletarian agriculture bloc, which 
seems imminent? 

He asked these questions not about China but about the United 

Millions of textbooks written by this man were used, at one 
time, in our country. In his Great Technology, his Social Chaos 
and the Public Mind>X and other works, he advocated social 
change. Following the Recommendations of the Carnegie- 
financed Commission on the Social Studies, he suggested that 
such change required the indoctrination of our youth through the 

# Report, pp. 149-150. 
f John Day, 1935. 
j John Day, 1933. 


schools. He recommended that social science be the "core of 
school curriculum” to bring about a climate of opinion favorable 
to his philosophy. 

Through the efforts of this and other followers of the Recom- 
mendations, and through the operation of the patronage network 
of Teachers College of Columbia University, the educational phi- 
losophy which Professor Rugg espoused soon pervaded the Amer- 
ican school system. This philosophy involves: 

implementing an expectancy of change; picturing the Amer- 
ica of today as a failure; disparaging the American Con- 
stitution and the motives of the Founders of the Republic; 
and presenting a “New Social Order.” 

Professor Rugg characteristically advocated production for use, 
not for profit (that old Socialist slogan); reconstruction of the 
national economic system to provide for central controls, to guar- 
antee a stable and a high minimum living for all; division of the 
social income, so as to guarantee at least a ten times 1929 min- 
imum for all; measuring wages by some yardstick of purchasing 
power; reeducation of the “parasitic” middleman in our economy 
and his reassignment to productive work; recognition that educa- 
tors are a group “vastly superior to that of a priesthood or of any 
other selected social class.” “Our task,” he said, was “to create 
swiftly a compact body of minority opinion for the scientific re- 
construction of our social order. This body of opinion must be 
made articulate and be brought to bear insistently upon the dic- 
tators of legislative and executive action. The alternative to this 
extension of democracy is revolution.” * 

In 1941 Professor Rugg denied vehemently that he was a So- 
cialist or that he had ever been one. However, in 1936 he had 
been a member of a committee of 500 supporting the Socialist 
candidacy of Norman Thomas. He was a director of The League 
for Industrial Democracy in 1934-1935. But no collateral evidence 
of his political position is necessary to disclose his Socialistic point 
* See Undermining Our Republic, Guardians of American Education, 1941. 


of view. He has stated it himself in his numerous writings. His 
employment of the Socialist plank “production for use, not for 
profit’* is quite enough to identify him. 

A group of “liberal” educators defended the Rugg textbooks. 
Prominent among these was Professor Robert S. Lynd, a former 
permanent secretary of The Social Science Research Council, 
himself an advocate of change toward socialism. Professor Rugg 
was also defended by a number of members of the Committee on 
Textbooks of the American Committee for Democracy and Intel- 
lectual Freedom. 

The money for Professor Rugg’s six textbooks came indirectly 
from Rockefeller foundation grants to the Lincoln School and 
Teachers College. While foundations approached in 1922 had 
refused direct support of the pamphlets. Professor Rugg reports* 
that preliminary estimates set the amount of money required at a 
sum far beyond that which the Lincoln School or Teachers Col- 
lege could be asked to supply. They did, however, support the 
project in other and altogether indispensable ways. In fact, if 
they had not given it an institutional connection and a home, no 
such undertaking could have been started. Even their financial 
contribution, however, was considerable. It consisted of the writ- 
er’s salary as educational psychologist in the school (1920-1929) 
and as professor of education in the college, the salary of his secre- 
tary (1920-1930), and an allowance for a part-time assistant during 
several years. 

Mr. Aaron Sargent also testified in detail regarding the Build - 
ing America textbook series, which the Reece Committee report 
characterized as another "attempt by radical educators financed by 
foundations to suborn the schools.” f It was The General Educa- 
tion Board, a Rockefeller foundation, which provided over $50,- 
000 for the production of these books, taken over and intensively 
promoted by The National Education Association. 

The State of California barred these books also from its schools, 
after a legislative committee, the Dilworth Committee, investi- 

* Building a Science of Society for the Schools, 1934, p. 10. 

•f Reece Committee Report , p. 154. 


gated and concluded in its report that they were subtle attempts 
to play up Marxism and to destroy our traditions. 

Mr. Sargent pointed out that there had been a "blackout" in 
history teaching in California for about twelve years; during this 
time no history textbooks were provided by the Department of 
Education, which was operating under the radical-devised 
scheme of "social studies." After an investigation, history books 
were again furnished, as the law required, In the meantime, the 
Building America books largely took their place, giving children 
distorted facts and consciously directed misinformation regard* 
ing our history and our society. 

The report of the Dilworth Committee, as a result of which the 
California Legislature refused any appropriation for the purchase 
of Building America textbooks, concluded that these books do 
"not present a true historical background of American history 
and progress, and that the cartoons and pictures appearing in 
said books belittle American statesmen, who have been upheld as 
heroes of American tradition and have been idealized by the 
American people; yet on the other hand the 'Building America’ 
series glamorizes Russian statesmen and [is] replete with pictures 
which do great credit to these leaders of Russian thought." The 
report goes on to say that the "books contain purposely distorted 
references favoring Communism, and life in Soviet Russia, in 
preference to the life led by Americans." 

In this regard, the Committee felt that pictures representing 
conditions of starvation among American families hardly pre- 
sented a true picture of family life in America. When children in 
the yth and 8th grades, the Committee said, compare such pic- 
tures with the illustrations of Russian family life, they will con- 
clude that family life in Russia is equal or even preferable to that 
in the United States." It was found that the "books paint present 
economic and social conditions in America in an unfavorable light 
and have the opportunity to propagandize class warfare and 
class distinction." It was concluded, further, that the texts present 
a materialistic picture of government and economy in America 
and in the world rather than the idealism of the American way of 


life. Specific criticism was made of the reference books listed in 
the Building America pamphlets as guides to additional informa- 
tion. These recommended books were found to be highly biased 
and likely to indoctrinate pupils in a manner contrary to the 
best traditions of America. 

The editors and authors of the Building America series were 
careful enough to present both sides of various problems and 
questions. This was done, however, in most instances, in a man- 
ner strongly indicating editorial bias in favor of Socialist meas- 
ures and ideas, a preference emphasized by the editors who se- 
lected the illustrations. The pictures were likely to impress chil- 
dren even more than the text itself and were selected clearly to 
arouse doubts about American institutions and American histori- 
cal figures. 

The pamphlet about Russia contains numerous propaganda 
pictures from Soviet information sources. The "objectivity” of the 
authors may be illustrated by their statement: "The Russians 
liked our system of government no better than we liked theirs." 
This implies that there is much to be said on both sides. It also 
assumes an absurdity — that the suppressed Russians, unable to 
speak their minds, favor the system which has been imposed on 

The Bolshevik revolution and regime are presented as a bless- 
ing to the Russian people. In the description of the long road 
which led to communism, there is not one word of fact or crit- 
icism regarding the murderous Red terror of 1917 and 1918, or 
the treachery of communism in destroying the hopes of Russia's 
democratic revolutionaries. Conditions in Russia are presented 
wholly in terms of Soviet apology. There is a chapter on making 
the State safe for socialism, including this: "Probably no other 
nation ever made such rapid strides in extending educational op- 
portunities for the people." The depicted image of social prog- 
ress contains no word of reference to the obliteration of freedom, 
to the concentration camps, to the purges and to the worldwide, 
Moscow-directed subversive activities. 

Pictures of everyday Soviet life present scenes in a church, in 


art galleries, in concert halls, and at a meeting of a Soviet “trade 
union” — the whole gamut of Red propaganda of the period* 
“As more consumer goods were produced and the scheme for 
buying and selling improved/’ it said, the wants of consumers 
were more satisfied. There is no mention, however, of the actual 
tragic dearth of consumer goods, even before the German attack; 
there is nowhere a picture of the privation of the Russian people 
under communism. 

Nor is this all. Fearful lest statements by outsiders might disil- 
lusion the child readers of these books about Russia, the authors 
are careful to prepare a defense. “Some writers mention some use 
of force by the government to attain its ends.” (I have emphasized 
the double use of “some.”) Yes, some writers mention a denial of 
the right to strike or protest; secret police; the absolute power of 
one man over the lives of the people; and the lack of any civil 
liberties in the American sense of the word — but the authors imply 
that there is another sense, a Soviet sense of civil liberties. The 
Russians, say the authors, have more self-government than they 
ever had before; the nexo Russians call their dictatorship the 
“democracy” of the working classes; there is no more discrimina- 
tion against certain races and creeds; etc. etc. etc. The authors 
have the effrontery to say that “rights that mean so much to 
Americans — freedom of assembly and the press — are little missed 
in Russia * * * to them [the Russians] the new leadership is 
better than the old.” They indicate also that, though it does not 
appeal to Americans, the Russian system is here to stay. 

The Dilworth report said of the book on China: “This book is 
peculiarly useful to the Communists as a medium to further dis- 
seminate the current party line concerning conditions in China.” 
The pamphlet on civil liberties contains pictures of Sacco and 
Vanzetti, of the Scopes trial, of Browder, of the Scottsboro Ne- 
groes, of strike riots being subdued. The whole collection, in spite 
of its pretended objectivity, is loaded with “liberal” propaganda. 
It is a reminder of the “Aesopian” language used by Communists 
in their communication system. 

It is difficult to believe that The Rockefeller Foundation and 


the National Education Association could have supported these 
textbooks. But the fact is that Rockefeller financed them and the 
NEA promoted them very widely. They were still in use in some 
parts of the country at the time of the Reece Committee inves- 

Another foundation-supported piece of “education” literature is 
a pamphlet entitled “The American Way of Business.” It was 
one of a series prepared by the National Association of Sec- 
ondary School Principals and the National Council for Social 
Studies, both branches of the National Education Association, un- 
der a giant from the Rockefeller General Education Board, to 
provide teachers with source material on some social problems.- 
Who wrote it? Oscar Lange and Abba P. Lerner. Mr. Lange will 
be remembered as the professor at the University of Chicago, 
when Dr. Hutchins was its president, who later renounced his 
American citizenship to accept appointment as the ambassador 
to the United Nations from Communist Poland. Mr. Lerner has 
been a collectivist for a long time. 

This book gives our children such ideas as these: 

Public enterprise must become a major constituent of our 
economy, if we are really going to have economic prosperity. 

# * # 

It is necessary to have public ownership of banking and 
credit (investment banks and insurance companies). 

* If * 

* * * it is necessary to have public ownership of monop- 
olistic key industries. 

# * * 

It is necessary to have public ownership of basic natural 
resources (mines, oil fields, timber, coal, etc.) 

# * # 

# * # in order to insure that the public corporations act 
in accordance with the competitive “rules of the game,” a 


special economic court (enjoying the same independence as 
the courts of justice) might be established * * * and that 
the economic court be given the power to repeal any rules 
of Congress, of legislatures, or of the municipal coun- 
cil's. * * * "* 

These texts, financed by The Rockefeller Foundation and dis- 
tributed by the National Education Association, must have in- 
fluenced the thinking of hundreds of thousands of defenseless 
young Americans. They may well have contributed to the recent 
philosophy of reckless public spending and overgrowth of gov- 

These books I have mentioned are but a few examples of 
what has happened to teaching materials in our schools and col- 
leges. Professor E. Merrill Root gives a quick survey of this de- 
velopment in his Collectivism on the Campus; f* in which he in- 
cludes a chapter entitled, “The State Liberals: Their Textbooks/’ 
The rise of communism, he says, has produced a strange result 
among the textbook writers. Conservatism is not even given house 
room. Communism is disliked, but the only alternative offered is 
“some such appeasement as welfarism or Fabian socialism.” He 
quotes Professor David McCord Wright of McGill University; 

What sometimes happens, for instance, in economics courses, 
is that the Marxian indictment is presented, followed by 
some sort of “social-democratic” or heavily interventionist 
answer, and that the capitalist case never gets heard at all, 

The vast majority of textbooks now used in colleges and 
schools on subjects in which a political slant could be given are 
heavily slanted to the left, This was demonstrated by Professor 
A. H. Hobbs of the University of Pennsylvania, whose work in 
disclosing some of the vices and foibles of modern sociology 
earned for him martyrdom in his career. In his analysis of a great 
number of sociology textbooks in his book The Claims of Soci - 
ology: A Critique of Textbooks, he found (p. 157); 

# Ibid., pp. 155-156. 

t Devln-Adair, J955, See also, Bending the Twig, by Augustin C. Rudd, 


Inclusion o£ a chapter on social change is an integral part of 
the system of sociology textbooks. Such chapters * * * are 
designed to leave students with favorable final impressions 
about the subject. After depressing the student with por- 
trayals of the amount of unemployment, poverty, crime, 
vice, and slums; after shocking him with descriptions of the 
insidious war propaganda and the horrors of war; after 
creating in him qualms about the amount of social dis- 
organization and raising him to rebellion against the '"dead 
hand of the past" upon society, the author of contemporary 
texts must assuage him. Mitigation of the depressive effects 
of horrendous description of social evils is attained in a 
chapter which is “constructive'* “optimistic" “positive" and 
“looking - beyond - social - defects - of - the - present - toward - 
a-brigln-future-whiclvwe-can-make-for-ourselves" in outlook. 

In seventy out of eighty-three texts, Dr, Hobbs found sections 
devoted to social change. “There is agreement that traditions, 
conventions, and social inertia are the principal obstacles to so- 
cial progress. . . . Authors in sociology texts increasingly em- 
phasize economic security as a fundamental social value and the 
principal goal toward which social change should be focused." 
Twenty-seven textbook authors call for the use of the social sci- 
ences in a program of social planning. As used in these texts, the 
term “planning” or “social engineering” involves control of social 
processes by long-range subjection of society to guidance by so- 
cial scientists. 

Dr. Hobbs formulates the attitudes of the majority of the so- 
ciology textbooks currently in use with these words: 

Educational practices and principles which involve disci- 
pline or drill, and the teaching of traditional beliefs about 
the government, the family, or the economic system are 
inefficient and harmful. These should be replaced by in- 
cluding educational programs which will train students to 
think for themselves and to behave only in accordance with 
self-derived principles of “rationality." Independent think- 


ing will emancipate student personalities from the stultify- 
ing effects of traditional beliefs and enable them to adjust 
to existing social situations and to promote social change. 

Democracy is highly desirable but the present form of 
government is not democratic, principally because business 
interests exert too much control over it. # # # Increased 
government control over business and industry is the most 
important step toward attainment of the political ends, 
but such controls constitute only one phase of broader social 

Maldistribution of wealth and income and unemployment 
are the outstanding characteristics of our social system. 

It is no wonder that some of our citizens, facing the political 
character of so much of what purports to be sociological teaching, 
have difficulty distinguishing among the terms "sociology,” "the 
social sciences , 0 and "socialism . 0 


To both teacher and student, reference works are important in- 
struments in the educational process. We have already seen that 
the all-important Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, created 
under foundation financing, was heavily slanted toward radical- 
ism. Let us look at another reference work. The Encyclopedia 

Financed by The Rockefeller Foundation, both Columbia Uni- 
versity and Cornell University established courses described as 
an "Intensive Study of Contemporary Russian Civilization . 0 It 
was chiefly to the staffs of these projects that the editors of The 
Encyclopedia Americana turned to write its section on Soviet 
Russia. A dramatis personae of this venture included such deeply 
biased workers as these: 

Sir Bernard Pares (who opposed American help to Greece 
and Turkey and supported the claim of Soviet Russia 
to Constantinople); 


Corliss Lamont (whose record of procommunism needs no 

Harriet L. Moore (named by Louis Budenz as a member of 
the Communist Party); 

Vladimir D. Kazakevich (one of the editors of Science and 
Society, a Marxist quarterly; a frequent contributor 
to Soviet Russia, a pro-Communist publication. Mr. 
Kazakevich left the United States in 1949 after exposure 
as a Soviet agent). 

and others of very doubtful objectivity. 

When the work was completed, Cornell University was so 
pleased with it that, with the permission of the Encyclopedia, it 
converted the Russian section into a textbook, USSR, which was 
used at Cornell until 1954. In the meantime, many other colleges 
and universities had adopted it, including Columbia, Rutgers, 
Swarthmore, Chicago, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Southern Cali- 
fornia, Washington, and Yale. 

At least 15 out of 20 contributors were, according to Professor 
Warren S. Walsh of Syracuse University, “pro-Soviet in varying 
degrees." About one third of the material in USSR was prepared 
by Mr. Kazakevich. That he could have been selected for this 
work was truly amazing. Professor E. Merrill Root, in his Col- 
lectivism on the Campus quotes these words from Mr. Kazake- 
vich, appearing on February 27, 1940, in Russky Golos: 

The crocodiles of imperialism will continue to swallow 
everything they get. For the neutral countries today the 
English crocodile is more dangerous than the German one. 
In order to prevent the lawlessness of this crocodile, you've 
got to drive a pole into the back of its neck. 

Professor Root continues, "Perhaps this chaste language seemed 
scholarly to the scholars of Cornell, for they invited Kazakevitch 
to lecture on the campus during the summer. His lectures became 
a part of The Encyclopedia Americana (as he was an ‘expert in a 
special field’) and of USSR ” 


Professor Roman Smal-Stocki of Marquette University has said 
of USSR that it is justly called a "fellow-traveling guide to the 
Soviet Union.*' 

It may, of course, be true that The Rockefeller Foundation 
bears no direct responsibility for what was produced. Perhaps the 
projects which it financed were wholly desirable. Perhaps it was 
entirely the fault of Columbia and Cornell Universities that a 
strange collection of radicals and pro-Communists were included 
on the staffs of the Russian projects, and the fault of Cornell that it 
did not recognize or become concerned over the biased nature of 
the book which it published. But the fact remains that it all came 
about through Rockefeller financing. If this is in the nature of 
that "risk taking" which many foundation executives maintain is 
the duty of the modem foundation, something is badly wrong, 

I ask again: is it not the duty of a foundation which takes such 
risks to examine the results and to repudiate them if they have 
been unfortunate? As far as I know, The Rockefeller Foundation 
has done nothing to inform the public that it is not in sympathy 
with what its financing produced in this instance or in any other. 
Here, indeed, is a strange situation. Foundations consider them- 
selves entitled to take credit for the outcome of a grant, the re- 
sults of which are socially approved. On the other hand, when the 
grant has failed, or if its product meets with disapprobation, or is 
seriously questionable, then responsibility is shifted to die recipi- 
ent of the grant. This is an odd interpretation of the "venture capi- 
tal" concept. "We are entitled to take political 'risks’ with the tax- 
exempt money we administer," say foundation managers. "If the 
project turns out safely, it is to our credit; if the risk turns out to 
have been too great, or if the result is an unhappy one, that is not 
our fault and we have no responsibility either to inform the pub- 
lic of the error or to take any steps to correct the injury done." 


The Citizens Education Project was created at Teachers College 
of Columbia University under financing, far exceeding one million 


dollars, provided by The Carnegie Corporation. “That the Project 
was carried on with considerable bias to the left is unquestion- 
able.”* There arises, then, the question of responsibility. The 
Committee report stated that it was unable, without further in- 
quiry, to determine whether this was the fault or the intention of 
either the Project managers or of the Carnegie foundation. It con- 
tinued its comment, however, as follows: 

We do, however, see responsibility lodged with The Carne- 
gie Corporation. It may not have had the duty to supervise 
the project or to direct it in transit — this may even have been 
unwise. But, as the project represented a substantial in- 
vestment of public money and its impact on society could 
be very heavy, it seems clearly to have been the duty of 
Carnegie to examine what had been done and to repudiate 
it if it was against the public interest. This, as far as we 
know, Carnegie did not do. 

What was the objective of this Project? To educate for better 
citizenship. How was this to be accomplished? One of its chief 
products was a card-index file. The cards summarized books, arti- 
cles, films, etc., being arranged topically so that teachers could use 
the files in teaching citizenship. The files were sold to schools at 
nominal cost. In essence, this was “canned” material for teachers. 
The teacher did not have to read a book; he or she could just look 
in the card file and read a quick digest prepared by the Project. 
There is some doubt that this method of teaching through canned 
media is desirable. Granting that it might be, the greatest objec- 
tivity would have to be used in preparing the digests and com- 
ments on the cards, as well as in the selection of items to be in- 
cluded. As the Committee put it: 

* * * even those who believe in “canned” education can- 
not defend the slant with which this card system was de- 
vised, unless they believe that education should not be 

* Reece Committee Report , p. i so. 


unbiased but should be directed toward selected political 
ends, and radical ones at that.* 

The Committee report gave several, out of many, examples of 
the radical slant. Books were included which could not be rea- 
sonably defended as proper for recommendation to school chil- 
dren — books by Communists and pro-Communists. Radical books 
were given approbation; conservative books were given the doubt- 
ful treatment. Let me give one illustration. The Road to Serfdom , 
by Frederick A. Hayek, a valuable commentary on the fallacies 
of socialism, is called "strongly opinionated." In contrast, the 
Building America textbooks, to which I have earlier referred, are 
described as "Factual, Ideals and Concepts of Democracy/ 1 
Many conservative books of importance were not even listed. 
But A Mask for Privilege by Carey McWilliams was described 
as "Historical, Descriptive." (Mr. McWilliams’s record of Com- 
munist-front associations consume four pages of the Reece Com- 
mittee report: 337 el seq.) Rich Land , Poor Land by Stuart Chase 
(whose collectivise position has been described earlier) was called 
"Descriptive, Factual, Illustrative." Building for Peace at Home 
and Abroad by Maxwell Stewart (whose Communist-front associa- 
tions consume about five pages of the Recce Committee report: 
p. 375 et seq.) was labeled "Factual, Dramatic." And Howard 
Fast’s The American was called "Historical, Bibliographical." f 
(Mr. Fast’s Communist associations occupy four pages of the Com- 
mittee report. He has since renounced the Party.) 


The Sloan Foundation, created in 1934, has had its regrettable 
moments. Its intention seems to have been to specialize in eco- 
nomic education and to seek truth through sound scholarship. 
But it supported the heavily left-slanted Chicago Round Table 
Broadcasts to the tune of 535,000 and the Public Affairs Pamphlets 
with 572,000. It supported a motion-picture-making program at 

• Ibid., p. 1 20. 

\lbid., p. 121. 


New York University which concentrated on presenting the dark' 
est image of the backward hinterlands of the South, possibly to 
arouse compassion but more likely for propaganda purposes. It 
deserves credit for having supported the sound economic teaching 
program of Harding College. Whether it merits credit for having 
contributed $19,000 to the Lincoln School at Columbia University 
is questionable. 

The Public Affairs Committee was directed by Maxwell Stewart, 
a one-time editor of the Communist English-language newspaper, 
Moscow News, Several witnesses have called Mr. Stewart a Com- 
munist,* but we do not know what his party allegiances were dur- 
ing his more than a decade of management of the Public Affairs 
pamphlets. They had a circulation of millions of copies among 
high-school and college students, among libraries, adult education 
groups, and government employees. Among the members of the 
board of directors of this publishing organization were such well- 
known “liberals" as Lyman Bryson, Luther Gulick, and Ordway 

We find these names also: Frederick Vanderbilt Field, Mark 
Starr, and Harry W. Laidler, all of whom may be classed as ex- 
treme leftists. The presence of these names on the roster of any or- 
ganization should have indicated to the Sloan trustees what the 
publishing venture was all about. Among the authors of the pam- 
phlets we find Louis Adamic, James G. Patton, Maxwell Stewart, 
and E. C. Lindeman, Stewart wrote by far the largest number 
of the approximately one hundred pamphlets. The style of these 
books is reminiscent of the Building America textbooks. They 
show a pretense of objectivity, but in giving both sides of an issue 
they leave no doubt that they believe the left side is sound. 

If my information is correct that The Sloan Foundation reor* 
ganized its management and deposed those who were response 
ble for its leftist orientation, there is ground for rejoicing and for 
hope that other foundations, whose trustees have lacked alertness 
in the past, may follow suit, 

•See a description of Mr. Stewart’. Communist-front associations, ibid,, pp, 





"In the United States we have had two violent revolutions: that 
which freed us from England and that which sought to divide us. 
I suggest we are now in the Third American Revolution, none the 
less serious because it is bloodless. * * * This new revolution is 
a reform movement gone wrong. It has become an attempt to in- 
stitute the paternal state in which individual liberty is to be sub- 
ordinated and forgotten in a misapplication of the theory of the 
greatest good for the greatest number.” I wrote these words in an 
article published in the American Bar Association Journal of May 
1953 * My statement may not have been entirely accurate. Instead 
of saying we are in the Third Revolution, I might better have said 
that it is nearly finished; that all that can be hoped for is a coun- 

"Liberals” have frequently announced that the revolution is 
over. So said Dr. Mortimer Adler, upon whose judgment The Ford 
Foundation (through its Fund for the Advancement of Educa- 
tion) relied so heavily as to put him in charge of the philosophical 
study of freedom, spending $600,000 on support of his philosophi- 
cal education. Professor Seymour E. Harris of Harvard has put it 
this way: 

In the 20 years between 1933 and 1953, the politicians, col- 
lege professors, and lawyers, with little help from business, 



wrought a revolution in the economic polices of the United 

Professor Harris should have added that the revolution was mate- 
rially aided by foundations. 

Over the past few decades the major foundation complex has 
operated almost as an informal but integral arm of government, 
acting, to a very considerable extent, as its collateral “brain trust, 1 ” 
and determining policy. If a revolution has indeed been accom- 
plished in the United States, we can look here for its motivation, 
its impetus, and its rationale. 


A good part of the impetus of the “revolution” came from Marx- 
ists. To what extent some of it came from actual Communists, we 
shall probably never be able to piece together adequately — but 
there can be equally little doubt that much of it was Communist- 
inspired. The presence of so many disclosed Communists in gov- 
ernment during the New Deal and Fair Deal eras makes this 
conclusion inevitable. There is, moreover, much evidence that 
Communists made substantial, direct inroads into the founda- 
tion world, using its resources to promote their ideology. 

The Reece Committee has been castigated for asserting that 
subversive influences have played a part in the history of founda- 
tions in the United States. Yet it was its predecessor, the Cox Com- 
mittee, which made this utterly plain, in so far as actual Commu- 
nist penetration of foundations was concerned. That Committee 
produced evidence which supported its conclusion that there had 
been a Moscow-directed, specific plot to penetrate the American 
foundations and to use their funds for Communist propaganda 
and Communist influence upon our society. There was also evi- 
dence that this plot had succeeded in some measure. 

We shall never know the full extent of this penetration, but testi- 
mony before the Cox Committee disclosed that The Marshall 
Field Foundation, The Garland Fund, The John Simon Guggen- 

• Reece Committee Hearings, p. 6a8, 


heim Foundation, The Robert Marshall Foundation, The Rosen- 
wald Fund, and The Phelps Stokes Fund had been successfully 
penetrated or used by Communists. The Marshall and Garland 
foundations had, in fact, lost their tax exemptions. The Cox investi- 
gation also disclosed that almost a hundred discovered grants to 
individuals and organizations with extreme leftist records or affil- 
iations had been made by some of the more important founda- 
tions, including The Rockefeller Foundation, The Carnegie Cor- 
poration, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The 
John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, The Russell Sage Founda- 
tion, The William C. Whitney Foundation and The Marshall 
Field Foundation, 

One hundred grants were not many, compared with the total 
grants of the foundations. But Professor Rowe made clear, in the 
following testimony before the Reece Committee, first, that the 
problem is qualitative and not quantitative; and, second, that 
the aggregate effect of Communist penetration cannot be measured 
by merely considering the number of direct grants to Communist 

In much of the activity that has to do with identification of 
Communist activity in the United States , it has seemed to 
me that we are going off on the wrong track when we limit 
ourselves to efforts to identify overt Communists , or let us 
say organizational Communists, people who carry a card or 
who can be positively identified as members of an organiza- 
tion subject to organized discipline . For every one of those 
that you fail to identify, and it seems to me we even fail to 
identify most of those, there are a thousand people who 
could not possibly be identified as such, because they have 
never had any kind of organizational affiliation, but among 
those people are many people who advance the interests 
of world communism, in spite of the fact that they are not 
subject to discipline and do not belong to any organization.^ 

• Reece Committee Report, pp. 199-200. 
f Reece Committee Report , pp. 199-200. 


* * * The people who can be trailed and tagged by the 
FBI are a very, very small minority. They occupy a very 
powerful position and a potentially important one, but the 
people who do the important work are unidentifiable, and 
if I were planning to infiltrate the United States, I would 
see to it that they were unidentifiable. 

Here it seems to me you have to set up an entirely different 
category than the two categories of Communists on the one 
side, and other people on the other side.* 

# * # 

* * * I would like to add this regarding the 1PR and re- 
garding the problem of Far Eastern policy. You remember 
some of my earlier remarks about the state of Far Eastern 
studies in the United States 20 or 30 years ago, how I 
said there was practically none of it; how some of the 
foundations started to finance the building up and training 
of personnel. It seems to me this kind of thing has to be 
taken into account in evaluating foundation grants, namely, 
that the area of ignorance in the United States about Far 
Eastern matters was so great that here was the strategic 
place in which to strike at the security of the United States 
by people interested in imperiling our security and foster- 
ing the aims of world communism. They would naturally 
not pick the area in which we have the greatest intellectual 
capacities and in which we have the greatest capacities for 
defense. They would pick the area of greatest public ignor- 
ance, with the greatest difficulty of defending against the 
tactics of their attack, and so these people naturally poured 
into Far Eastern studies and exploited this area as tire area 
in which they could promote the interests of world com- 
munism most successfully in the general ignorance and 
blindness of the American people. 

So that it is not only quantitative evaluation that counts; 
it is not only the numbers of grants or the amounts of 

* Reece Committee Hearings, p. 536. Emphasis supplied. 


grants; it is the areas in which the grants are given that are 
significant. Here, you see, it seems to me, it takes a great 
deal of subject matter know-how — quite apart from dollars 
and cents — people and their affiliations or lack thereof, to 
evaluate the impact on this country of any given founda- 
tion grant, I don't care whether it is $50 or $5 million. It is 
a qualitative matter, not a quantitative matter.* 


The two recent Congressional investigations were largely con- 
cerned with "subversion.” The Cox Committee interpreted this 
term to include only international communism of the Stalinist 
brand and organized fascism. The Reece Committee, in the 
course of its work, came to give the term broader or deeper mean- 
ing. Neither investigation established sharply, however, the char- 
acteristics of Communist activity which would be clearly held to 
be subversive. In the public mind, the term "subversion” is gen- 
erally confined to Moscow-directed Communist activity, or that of 
domestic Communists allied in an international conspiracy. 

The emphasis on a search for organized Communist penetra- 
tion of foundations absorbed much o£ the energy of the investiga- 
tors and detracted somewhat from the efficacy of their general 
inquiry into "subversion.” There are varieties of Communist sec- 
tarian programs and propaganda of a dissident nature, aside from 
those directed from Moscow. A follower of Trotsky’s brand of 
communism may be no less a danger to our society because he op- 
poses the current rulers of Russia. It is likely that there are more 
Trotsky followers in the United States than followers of the Krem- 
lin. Even among the formerly orthodox supporters of the Party 
line, there has occurred a mass conversion to a domestic form of 
the Communist theory and method. 

Moreover, it is difficult to mark the line beyond which "socialism” 
becomes "communism.” The line may be between methods of as- 
suming power, communism being distinguished from other forms 
of socialism by its intent upon establishing a dictatorship of the 
•J 5 M.,pp. 541-54*. 


proletariat. But this line is by no means clear. Socialism has the 
same ends as communism, though with an allegedly democratic 
approach, The Communist Manifesto of 1848 is the basis of all 
socialist parties the world over. Marx himself did not distinguish 
between socialism and communism. Both advocate centrally 
planned controls of production and consumption by the State, 
public ownership of the means of production, and confiscatory 
measures. They have in common the concept that, through a ma- 
nipulation of public affairs, man can attain lasting happiness for 
all, can make want and misery disappear, can eradicate war, and 
can produce Paradise on earth. The major distinction between the 
two forms of socialism, as asserted by the Communists, is that they 
believe in the necessity of a temporary dictatorship of the prole- 
tariat before reaching the Golden Age of social justice and uni- 
versal happiness. 

America has had a long tradition of Socialist fads and has 
listened long to utopian arguments. In the 19th century there were 
numerous Socialist communities in the United States. Robert 
Owen, the founder of the cooperative movement and probably the 
most important of the pre-Marxian Socialists, addressed the Con- 
gress of the United States more than 125 years ago. He preached 
“production for use, instead of production for profits. 1 ' He ad- 
vanced the generally discredited theory of surplus value exploited 
by Marxism in calling the proletariat to arms in a class war held 
to be unavoidable. 

The failure of our numerous experiments in communism has not 
ended a longing for better forms of social organization. This long- 
ing is evidenced in the ease with which preachers of utopian eco- 
nomic systems still gather large followings. 

The mandates of both the Cox and Reece Committees went fur- 
ther than a mere exploration of “subversion." The Cox Committee 
was to inquire into activities which were not in the “interests or 
tradition of the United States"; the Reece Committee, into the sup- 
port of “un-American activities." These terms are almost impossi- 
ble to define with complete certainty. They can only be related to 
a priori standards of value, standards which cannot be arrived at 


through an empirical approach. There are conflicting ways in 
which historical facts can be interpreted to prove what the tradi- 
tion of the United States may be. One can make a case for the 
claim that various types of sectarian socialism are traditionally 
characteristic of parts of our farm population. One can submit 
“proof” in the form of data about continued devotion to ideas 
originally promoted by early religious community settlements, and 
their survival in various forms of Federal farm support and soil- 
banking schemes. However, there was sufficient general clarity in 
the mandates of the two Committees for inquiry purposes. Social- 
ism is basically antithetical to our system. 

All Socialists do not recognize themselves as such. But it is, 
after all, their private affair. They are entitled to be Socialists if 
they care to, whether or not they are aware that socialism cannot 
exist without force and oppression, that it must otherwise fail for 
economic reasons. In a democracy, the citizen has the right to his 
reasonable mistakes, disastrous as they may be to the public wel- 
fare. The free contest of ideas would usually save us from such 
evils as doctrinaire socialism. But, in our country, the free market 
for ideas has rapidly declined. The one-sided support by founda- 
tions of the utopian Socialists has created a constricted and limited 
market place. 

So the real problem which faced the two recent investigations 
was the imbalance in the struggle of ideas, created by the prefer- 
ence of foundation giving in the two decades from 1930 to 1950. 
The virulent criticism to which Congressional investigation of 
foundations has been subjected has perverted an investigation of 
this imbalance into an alleged attack on civil liberties. 

The true problem is not whether Socialists or extreme "liberals” 
are respectable and entitled to their views but rather that their 
opponents have been discriminated against in the allotment of 
funds by major foundations. The ascendancy of Socialistic ideas is 
attributable, partly at least, to this foundation-created imbalance. 

The Reece Committee did not disparage liberalism. It said: “We 
cannot too strongly state that this Committee respects the true lib- 
eral and deems him as important to the proper political function- 


ing of our society as is the conservative/' It did attack the kind of 
person who calls himself a “liberal'' but is not. Such a “liberal/* 
said the Committee, “travels IN if not UNDER the same direc- 
tion” as communism — he may even be “a violent and inveterate 
opponent of communism," but he gives it support by falling into 
“the error of wishing to destroy before he knows the significance 
of that with which he wishes to replace/* 

And so, continued the Committee, the foundations have fre- 
quently been persuaded by these ardent men-in-a-hurry to use 
trust funds for “risk capital/’ without fairly measuring the social 

This “risk capital" concept, which has found such wide favor 
among major foundation executives, propels them “into a constant 
search for something new, a pathological scrutinizing of what we 
have, on the premise that there must be something better/* There 
is much room for improvement in our society, but much of what 
we have is considered by the great majority of Americans sound 
and inviolate. The pathological “liberal" propulsion into taking 
social risks seems invariably to skip the study of what we have that 
is good and should be preserved; instead, it supports change for 
changes sake, or on the general theory that the different thing 
must be better.* Much of this “risk taking" assists communism. 

That Socialistic ideas can be legally promoted in the United 
States, that prominent figures have openly adopted them in the 
disguise of “reform/* does not make them any less “subversive / 1 If 
one accepts the concepts and principles of the Declaration of In- 
dependence and the Constitution as expressions of the existing 
order, then any attempt to replace them with the concepts and 
principles of socialism must be considered “subversive" and “un- 
American/* Moreover, there is continued danger that the Commu- 
nist who has recently been converted over to what might be called 
simple socialism may switch back again in his allegiance. Many 
of the intellectuals who departed from communism did so be- 
cause they disagreed with Stalin; some of these will still support 
• Recce Committee Report, pp. 20i*sos. 


communism of a variety differing only slightly from the old or- 

If any American should know how the Communists operate, it 
is J. Edgar Hoover. In an address in October 1955 Mr. Hoover 
said that the Communists do their most effective work through 
“fictitious liberals.” These he defined as 

individuals who through insidiously slanted and sly propa- 
gandist writings and reports oppose urgently needed in- 
ternal security measures; present the menace of communism 
as a myth of hysteria; urge that we tolerate the subversive 
acts of Communists because Communists are only “non- 
conformists'’; pretend that the Communist Party is a politi- 
cal movement and that it is improper to consider it a 
criminal conspiracy to overthrow our government by force 
and violence. 

Such ideas may be presented even by people of comparatively 
conservative leanings who fail to recognize the threat of socialism 
and its incompatibility with our Constitutional rights. The Reece 
Committee report gives an example of this process out of the 
mouth of Mr. Pendleton Herring, President of the extremely 
powerful Social Science Research Council. In an address to The 
American Political Science Association in 1953, of which he was 
then President, Mr. Herring touched on a subject which is dear 
to the hearts of “liberal” extremists and very valuable to Com- 
munists — “civil rights.” A thesis of extreme “liberals” is that they 
alone support the fundamental rights granted by the Constitution 
— that the rest of us are in danger of destroying these precious 
rights— that a “conservative” is almost perse against “civil rights.” 
Mr. Herring contends that he is rather conservative. But he seems 
to lack understanding of the fact that socialism and communism 
are eventually destroyers of liberty, however respectable some of 
their followers may appear. 

The Reece Committee report commented on Mr. Herring's typi- 
cally “liberal” speech as follows: 


We regard as unfortunately typical, the address made in 
1953 by Mr. Pendleton Herring, now President of The So- 
cial Science Research Council , to The American Political 
Science Association , of which he was then President. After 
a discussion of the position and work of the political scien- 
tist in America, and after emphasizing the necessity of em- 
pirical approaches and of observing the cultural lag theory, 
he launched into a tirade in the “civil rights” area. 

Let us re-quote for guidance, the words of Mr. Hoover — 
“It is an established fact that whenever one has dared to 
expose the Communist threat he has invited upon himself 
the adroit and skilled talents of experts in character as- 
sassination.” Let us then quote from Mr. Herring’s address, 
made under the cloak of office in two tax-exempt organiza- 
tions supported heavily with the public’s money through 
foundation grace. He speaks of “political quacks” who ask 
“careers for themselves through exploitation of public con- 
cern with the Communist contagion.” He does not identify 
any one man against whom he may have some special an- 
imus. His terminology, his selection of phrase, condemns 
as “quacks” whoever try to expose Communists. He makes 
no exceptions. He does not exempt from his excoriation 
any Congressional investigators or investigation. He indi- 
cates that investigating Communists may, indeed, be worse 
than Communism. He repeats the hysterical claim that 
books have been “burned.” How many and how often? Is 
there truly danger in the United States of “book burning”? 
He speaks of giving “cool, intelligent treatment” to “the 
transmission of erroneous information and propaganda” — ■ 
is it not transmitting “erroneous information and propa- 
ganda” to infer that there is widespread “book burning” in 
this countryl 

He uses the term “witchdoctors” to characterize the whole 
breed of exposers of Communism. He speaks of “contrived 
excursions and alarums” — implying that the Communist 
menace has been grossly exaggerated for political reasons. 


He refers to the whole exposure business as “MALARKY- 
ISM,” putting it in capital letters. He gives us this profound 
comment upon our concern with the Communist menace: 
“We must go from symptoms to the causes. A deep 
cause, I think, is a failure to understand the forces operating 
in the world around us. Why do so many Americans feel 
threatened? It is the stubborn complexity of world problems 
and the difficulties arising from ideological differences and 
international rivalries that lead them to seek scapegoats 
among their fellow countrymen/ 1 

That is an astounding statement to come from one of the 
top rank of those who disburse the public money which 
foundations control. “You poor dumb Americans,” he might 
well have said, “You are afraid of the Russian Communists 
only because you do not understand the dears/' 

Mr. Herring says: “Why assume that the conspiracy of 
Communism is best exposed where the limelight shines 
brightest?” He forgets that it has frequently taken a glaring 
limelight to induce government officials to expose a Com- 
munist — witness, among many, the case of ITarry Dexter 

Another example of the “cloak of respectability” (to which 
Mr. J. Edgar Hoover referred) through eminence in the 
foundation world, is to be found in public utterances of 
Mr. Paul Hoffman, formerly Chairman of the Ford Founda- 
tion and now Chairman of its offspring, the Fund for the 
Republic. In an article To Insure the End of Our Hysteria 
in the New York Times Magazine Section of November 14, 
1954, Mr. Hoffman referred to the California Senate Un- 
American Activities Committee as a “highly publicized witch 
hunt ”* 

Messrs. Herring and Hoffman are not ordinary citizens express- 
ing a personal political point of view. They have been two of the 

• Ibid., pp. 115-116. 


most important characters among the dramatis personae of the 
foundation complex, 


The Reece Committee concluded that because of the essential 
identity of evolutionary and revolutionary socialism and commu- 
nism, much of the radicalism which has been supported and 
financed by foundations was “subversive.” It expressed itself as 

Foundation spokesmen have emphatically denied any sup- 
port of subversion. We question, however, whether in such 
denials they did not misinterpret the meaning of the term 
“subversion. 1 * Their denials were justified in so far as they 
are related to the direct support of Communism, but these 
spokesmen were well aware of the nature of some of the 
evidence produced before this Committee which showed 
that foundations had frequently supported those who wish 
to undermine our society. Their denials of subversion in 
relation to such activities are without merit. 

What does the term “subversion” mean? In contemporary 
usage and practice , it does not refer to outright revolution, 
but to a promotion of tendencies which lead , in their in- 
evitable consequences, to the destruction of principles 
through perversion or alienation. Subversion, in modern so- 
ciety, is not a sudden, cataclysmic explosion , but a gradual 
undermining, a persistent chipping away at foundations 
upon xuhich beliefs rest . 

By its very nature, successful subversion is difficult to detect. 
It can easily be confused with honest, forthright criticism. 
In our free society outright and honest criticism is not only 
permissible but immensely desirable. Individuals who en- 
gage openly in such criticism, who criticize political in- 
stitutions from a political perspective, and economic in- 
stitutions from an economic perspective, should be given 
free rein and encouraged. The issues involved in per* 


mitting open and honest criticism, however, differ vitally 
from the issues raised by subversion promoted by founda- 
tions. Some of these vital differences (which foundation 
spokesmen refused to acknowledge, much less discuss, in 
their conscious misinterpretation of the term "subversive”) 
are these: 

Fundamental to the entire concept of tax exemption 
for foundations is the principle that their grants are to be 
primarily directed to strengthening the structure of the 
society which creates them. Society does not grant tax 
exemption for the privilege of undermining itself . Reason- 
able license is granted to satisfy personal idiosyncrasies, 
with the result that there is much social waste when 
giants serve no truly useful purpose to society. But such 
tolerated waste is something far different from the impact 
of grants made by foundations which tend to undermine 
our society. Such grants violate the underlying, essential 
assumption of the tax-exemption privilege, that the sub- 
stantial weight of foundation effort must operate to 
strengthen, improve and promote the economic, political 
and moral pillars upon which our society rests. 

# * * 

In the modern usage of the term, " subversion it is no 
exaggeration to state that in the field of the social sciences 
many major projects which have been most prominently 
sponsored by foundations have been subversive . 

Numerous examples of such foundation-sponsored projects, 
subversive of American moral, political and economic prin- 
ciples, were offered in testimony. Foundation spokesmen 
failed utterly to provide any evidence that such heavily 
financed and prominently sponsored projects were in any 
real sense balanced by projects which promoted or strength- 
ened the principles upon which our society rests. In this 
sense, the weight of influence of foundation tax-exempt 
funds applied in the social sciences has been on the side of 


Moreover, the subversive projects have been offered with 
spurious claims to “science.” With this false label they have 
been awarded a privileged status. They have been offered 
as “scientific” and, therefore, beyond rebuttal. The impact 
of these subversive works has been intensified manifold by 
the sponsorship of foundations.”* 


Unhappily, the average citizen, even the normally well-informed, 
has no fair chance to combat radical ideas flowing into education 
and into government through the agency of foundations. The writ- 
ings of the partisan educators come to the attention of the profes- 
sional class only. By the time the ordinary citizens know what has 
happened, they have been “subverted 1 ' — a tremendous pressure for 
the imposition of radical ideas has been built up, and their propo- 
nents have become well organized, entrenched, and implemented 
to impose them. 

The report of the American Historical Association's Commission 
on Social Studies illustrates the inherent danger in foundation 
meddling in vital areas of public affairs. This report, it will be re- 
called, was characterized by Professor Laski as “an educational pro- 
gram for a Socialist America ” It started a flow of radical ideas 
into education, ideas for which, it is safe to say, the average 
American would have scant sympathy. But that average American 
is not aware, even today, of the responsibility of this Carnegie 
foundation-supported report for so much of the mischief wrought 
in our educational system. The damage was done long before 
there was any possible hope that the people could have been 
alerted to defend themselves. 

It is difficult to trace with any exactness the extent to which 
foundation-supported ideologies have passed into government, or 
the exact courses which this flow has taken. But there is evidence 
enough that the flow has been full and serious. In its report for 
1933-1934, the National Planning Board included this statement; 

• Ibid., pp. 205-206. 


State and interstate planning is a lusty infant but the work 
is only beginning. Advisory economic councils may be re- 
garded as instrumentalities for stimulating a coordinated 
view of national life and for developing mental attitudes 
favorable to the principle of national planning. 

The report acknowledged the cooperation, in the scheme for 
more national planning, of certain “advisory economic councils”: 
The Council of Learned Societies, The American Council on Edu- 
cation; and The Social Science Research Council — a committee of 
this last having “prepared this memorandum.”* 

I urge a reading of pages 129-133 of the Committee report, to 
get a more detailed idea of the concept of national planning which 
the foundation-supported clearing houses had fostered and 
brought into government. Consider, for instance, the report of The 
National Resources Committee, which took the place of The Na- 
tional Planning Board, which went so far as to advise “A New 
Bill of Rights.” Not satisfied apparently with the “Bill of Rights” 
attached to our Constitution, it contained these new “rights,” pre- 
sumably to be guaranteed by the Federal government. 

3. The right to adequate food, clothing, shelter, and 
medical care. 

4. The right to security, with freedom from fear of old 
age, want, dependency, sickness, unemployment, and ac- 
cident. (This is the “cradle-to-the-grave” security concept.) 

6. The right to come and go, to speak or to be silent, 
free from the spyings of secret political police. 

g. The right to rest, recreation, and adventure, the op- 
portunity to enjoy life and take part in an advancing civiliza- 


It would be a vast undertaking, but well worth while, to attempt 
to ascertain how many anticapitalist books have been foisted on 
the American public through foundation support. The number is 

* Ibid., p. ikq. 


indeed great. Here is one for which Andrew Carnegie, were he 
alive, would hardly congratulate his trustees for having financed. 

It is Business as a System of Power, written by Professor Rob- 
ert A. Brady, under a grant from The Carnegie Foundation for 
the Advancement of Teaching. In an introduction. Professor Rob- 
ert S. Lynd says: 

* * * capitalist economic power constitutes a direct, con- 
tinuous and fundamental threat to the whole structure of 
democratic authority everywhere and always, 

Dr. Brady repeatedly alleges that BIG BUSINESS is an essen- 
tial evil. The “great corporations" account for much of the current 
mischief in our society, “Industrial capitalism," he says, “is an in- 
tensely coercive form of organization of society," and great evils 
flow from it. He is very clearly a collectivist. He just does not like 
the capitalist system. The business system is “feudal"; it is “com- 
pletely authoritarian (antidemocratic)"; its leadership is "self- 
appointed, self-perpetuating, and autocratic." War, he indicates, 
is essential for capitalist survival — a statement which is reminiscent 
of Communist propaganda. The National Association of Manufac- 
turers, he likens to the Reichsverband der deutschen Industrie; 
and “Mr. Knudsen, Edward Stettinius and Bernard Baruch are 
paralleled by Mr. Ogura in Japan, Lord Beaverbrook in England, 
and Hermann Goering (himself a leading industrialist), Frieder- 
ick Flick, and their group in Germany." Big business, says this 
seer, can result in fascism.* 

The Carnegie Corporation followed the production of this book 
very carefully and financed its publication, 


Some tax-exempt organizations have been bold and forthright in 
promoting socialism and yet have escaped revocation of tax ex- 
emption. One is The League for Industrial Democracy. Its pur- 
pose is to educate the American people into an acceptance of so- 
cialism. Mr. Ken Earl, a witness before the Reece Committee, 

Ibid.j p. 117 et seq. 


termed it “an adjunct of the Socialist Party,” and his conclusion 
seems amply justified. 

After his exposition of the socialist character of the LID, Mr. 
Earl concluded: 

# # # Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, let 
me say that in this presentation I do not quarrel with the 
right of these many people in the LID, and all of those who 
have been recipients of its awards or have spoken to it, 
and I don’t quarrel with their people, to say and write the 
things which we have discussed, though I disagree with 
many of the things which they advocate. 

My thesis is this ; If the LID is to continue to fill the air 
with propaganda concemmg socialism ; if it is to continue 
stumping for certain legislative programs; and if it is to 
continue to malign the free enterprise system under which 
we operate — then I believe that it should be made to do so 
with taxed dollars, just as the Democrats and the Repub- 
licans are made to campaign with taxed dollars 

In his statement filed with the Committee, Dr. Harry W. Laid* 
ler, executive director of the LID, attempted to show that the or- 
ganization was no longer '’Socialist” and that it was "educational” 
in its activities. The fact is that comparatively few of its members, 
associates, and officers are now members of the Socialist Party. But 
no wonder. That Party, as Norman Thomas, its old leader, has ad- 
mitted, has shrunk. But socialism is still with us, and far stronger 
than in the days when there was an active and substantial party, 
Most Socialists have gone elsewhere. Most now call themselves 
"liberals.” As for the claim that the work of the LID is “educa- 
tional” under the law, entitling it to receive tax-deductible dona- 
tions, then if that is so, said the Reece Committee, “something is 
very wrong with the law,” 

The League for Industrial Democracy (formerly The Intercol- 
legiate Socialist Society), to which I have earlier referred, started 
life in *905, Its name was changed in 19s!, but its character re- 

• Ibid,, pp. 105-106. 


mained the same. I have pointed out that it called itself a “militant 
educational movement” to promote a “new social order based on 
production for use and not for profit,” calling this “a revolutionary 
slogan” and urging “the elimination of capitalism.” This organiza- 
tion's publication, Revolt, announced proudly the wide dissemina- 
tion of its inflamatory “educational” literature: 

The LID emergency publications, The Unemployed and 
Disarm, have reached a circulation of one-half million. 
* * * Students organized squads of salesmen to sell these 
magazines, containing slashing attacks on capitalism and 
the war system * * *♦* 

Mr. Earl, in his testimony, piled up quotation after quotation to 
show the true character of this “educational” organization. They 
are far too numerous even to digest here. But I shall give a few 
from the writings and official pronouncements of Dr. Laidler, 
whose statement to the Committee denied its radical-propagan- 
dist nature, and of others of influence or importance in the LID 
organization (emphasis supplied throughout): 

[The] recourse [of workers and farmers] now is to form 
a political party which they themselves control, and through 
which they might conceivably obtain state mastery over the 
owning class. [Paul R. Porter, in Revolt, a publication of 
the LID.] f 

The LID therefore works to bring a new social order; 
not by thinking alone, though a high order of thought is 
required; not by outraged indignation, finding an outlet in 
a futile banging of fists against the citadel of capitalism; 
but by the combination of thought and action and an un- 
derstanding of what is the weakness of capitalism in order 
to bring about socialism in our own lifetime. [The Inter - 
Collegiate Student Council of the LID, an affiliated organ- 
ization.] J 

♦ Ibid., p. 97. 
t Ibid., p. 97. 
j Ibid., p. 96. 


Watch now those little flames o£ mass unrest * * * . Great 
energy will be generated by those flames of mass revolt. But 
revolt is not revolution, and even though new blankets of 
cruel repression fail to smother the fire and in the end only 
add to its intensity, that energy may be lost unless it can 
be translated into purposive action. Boilers in which steam 
can be generated — if we may work our metaphor — need be 
erected over the fire, and that steam forced into engines 
of reconstruction. 

Trotsky, in describing the rule of the Bolsheviks in the 
Russian Revolution, has hit upon a happy figure of speech 
which we may borrow in this instance. No man, no group 
of men, created the revolution; Lenin and his associates 
were but the pistons driven by the steam power of the 
masses. The Marxist Bolshevik party saved that steam from 
aimless dissipation , directed it into the proper channels . 
To catch and to be driven by that steam is the function of 
the radical parties in America today . 

# * * 

There are members who would pattern it [the Socialist 
Party of America] after the German Social Democracy and 
the British Labor Party, despite the disastrous experiences 
of two great parties of the Second International. There are 
members who have lost to age and comfort their one-time 
fervor, and members who would shrink from struggle in 
time of crisis. 

# * # 

They [the Socialists] must overcome the quiescent influence 
of those whose socialism has been dulled by intimacy with 
the bourgeois world, and they must speak boldly and con- 
vincingly to the American working people in the workers' 

If their party can rise to these tasks then perhaps capital- 
ism can be decently buried before it has found temporary 
rejuvenation in a Fascist dictatorship . [Paul Porter, in Re~ 


volt. Note: Mr. Porter was an organizer and lecturer for 
the LID and a missionary to thousands of college stu- 

The crucial issue of industrial civilization today is not be- 
tween laissez-faire individualism on the one hand and 
collectivism on the other. History is deciding that question. 
The question for us is what sort of collectivism we want. 
Modern technology makes collectivism inevitable . But 
whether our collectivism is to be Fascist, feudal, or Socialist 
xoill depend * * * upon the effectiveness with which we 
translate those political ideals into action. 

You cannot fight on the economic front and stay neutral on 
the legal or political front . Politics and economics are not 
two different things, and the failures of the labor movement 
in this country largely arise from the assumption that they 
are. Capitalism is as much a legal system as it is an eco- 
nomic system, and the attack on capitalism must be framed 
in legal or political terms as well as in economic terms . 
* * * a Socialist attack on the problem of government 
cannot be restricted to presidential and congressional elec- 
tions or even to general programs of legislation ♦ We have 
to widen our battlefront to include all institutions of gov- 
ernment, corporations, trade unions , professional bodies, 
and even religious bodies, as well as legislatures and courts » 
We have to frame the issues of socialism and democracy and 
fight the battles of socialism and democracy in the stock- 
holders* meetings of industrial corporations, in our medical 
associations, and our bar associations, and our teachers* 
associations, in labor unions, in student councils, in con- 
sumers’ and producers’ cooperatives — in every social in- 
stitution in which we can find a foothold * * *. 

• # t 

But the need of fighting politically within corporations and 
trade associations and professional bodies, as well as labor 

•Ibid., p. 98. 


unions, is just as pressing if we think that fundamental social 
change can be secured in this country only by unconstitu- 
tional measures. 

In a revolution, when the ordinary political machinery of 
government breaks down, it is absolutely essential that the 
revolutionary force control the remaining centers of social 
power. In Russia the success of the Bolshevik revolution 
rested with the guilds or soviets, which were not created 
by the Communist Party and which antedated the revolu- 
tion. A socialist revolution in this countiy xoill succeed 
only if our guilds , chief among them our engineering so- 
cieties, have within them a coherent socialist voice . 
[Felix S. Cohen, in Revolt.] * 

Under a system where the basic industries of the country 
are privately owned and run primarily for profit, therefore, 
much of the income of its wealthiest citizens bears little 
or no relation to their industry, ability or productivity. 
[Dr. Harry W. Laidler, Executive Secretary of the LID in 
“Toward Nationalization of Industry/' a pamphlet widely 
distributed by it, which expressly advocates nationalization 
of forests, coal mines, oil, power, railroads, communications, 
banking and credit.] f 

This Dr. Laidler is the man whose filed statement said the LID 
was educational and not Socialist! 

If The League for Industrial Democracy is entitled to tax ex- 
emption, then, like Mr. Earl, I see no reason why an organization 
which is frankly created for the purpose of promoting the platform 
of either the Democratic or Republican Party should not be tax 
exempt. Or is it only Socialist propaganda which deserves tax ex- 


This tax-exempt organization, supported by The Ford Foundation 
and others, is engaged in the ‘'education” of labor. Its '‘education” 

• Ibid., p. 98. 
t Ibid pp. 102-103. 


is of a special kind: political education. Its keynote was sounded 
in an invitation of October 2, 1946, to attend a conference at 

At the dinner, we shall consider methods labor must use 
when collective bargaining does not work, especially meth- 
ods of dealing with the government.* 

The Reece Committee report summarizes the nature of this 
foundation this way: 

The background of some ALES staff members, together 
with a list of participants in ALES conferences, suggests 
an interlock with individuals and groups associated with 
militant socialism and, in some instances, with Communist 

The nature of the “educational” program of this Ford-supported 
organization is indicated by the subjects listed for discussion at 
various ALES conferences: 

Political Action for Labor; 

Political Action Techniques; 

The Contribution of Labor in Rebuilding Democratic So- 

The Role of Workers’ Education in Political Action. 

One conference strongly stressed 

the urgency of participation in political action by labor and 
the re-evaluation of education in relation to political action. 

Nor was foreign policy to be neglected. “International affairs” 
for labor received wide attention, and labor was urged to take part 
in establishing foreign policy. 

Action, action, action — is the constant demandl 

The American Labor Education Service distributes two song 

• Ibid., p. 106. 
f Ibid., p. 106. 


books, Songs Useful for Workers 9 Groups — some of the music hav- 
ing been contributed by the Communist Hans Eisler— and a Rebel 
Song Book. It circulates a series of pamphlets “for Workers' 
Classes,” many of which were published by The League for In- 
dustrial Democracy, some of them written by Harry Laidler, the 
Socialist executive director of the LID. Plays are provided for the 
education of the laboring man, many of them socially incendiary, 
written by such eminent educators as Albert Maltz, who served a 
jail term for contempt of Congress. 

One of the leading lights of the ALES is Mr. Mark Starr, its vice 
chairman, who has also been chairman of The League for Indus- 
trial Democracy. Mr. Starr has had many opportunities to exercise 
his influence for socialism. He has been director of education of 
the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, a member of 
the United States Advisory Commission on Educational Ex- 
change, labor consultant to Elmer Davis's Office of War Informa- 
tion, a member of the American delegation to establish UNESCO, 
a labor-education consultant to the American occupation govern- 
ment in Japan, and a member of President Truman's Commission 
on Higher Education. He has also been Chairman of the Public 
Affairs Committee. 

Mr. Starr has no use for our economic system — he has explained 
that carefully. He is a frank collectivist. And, ironic as it may be, 
he has been a heavy beneficiary of Ford Foundation (Fund for 
Adult Education) largess, though he has expressed himself re- 
garding foundations as follows: 

* * * colleges too often have to go cap-in-hand and ex- 
ploit personal contacts with the uncrowned kings and agents 
of philanthropy * * * . There are, of course, some foun- 
dations which delouse effectively the millions accumulated 
by monopolies and dynastic fortunes; but if one could 
choose a way for the long time support of education, it 
would be done by community intelligence rather than the 
caprice of the big shots of big business who wish to per- 
petuate their names in a spectacular fashion, a process which 


may not in all cases coincide with the real educational activ- 
ity of the college.* 


It is an understatement to say that the majority of the Reece Com- 
mittee was shocked at Professor Kenneth Colegrove’s revelations 
concerning the extent to which foundation-supported organiza- 
tions had been responsible for the penetration of Communists 
and Communist sympathizers into the government as advisers* 

When advisers were to be selected in social-science areas for 
our occupation authorities in Germany and Japan, Professor Cole- 
grove submitted, as Secretary of The American Political Science 
Association, upon request of the government, a list of proposed 
political advisers. While he himself was appointed and took office 
as an adviser to General MacArthur (not at his own suggestion), 
his list was completely ignored. He found, to his dismay, that the 
advisers had been selected entirely from lists supplied by two 
other organizations. One was the notorious Institute of Pacific 
Relations, so generously supported by The Rockefeller Founda- 
tion, The Carnegie Corporation, and The Carnegie Endowment 
for International Peace. The other was The American Council of 
Learned Societies, another intermediary organization heavily sup- 
ported by major foundations. 

The Communist connections of IPR have been mentioned. In 
the case of The American Council of Learned Societies, its Execu- 
tive Secretary was Dr. Mortimer Graves, whose list of Commu- 
nist-front associations impressed even the Cox Committee. Here 
we have two of the executive agencies of what the Reece Com- 
mittee report called the “concentration of power** or the complex 
supported by some of the major foundations. 

Professor Colegrove checked the list of accepted appointees. He 
testified as follows: 

We checked these names off. Some of them were known to 
us to be Communists, many of them pro-Communists or 
fellow travelers. They were extremely leftist. 

• Ibid., pp. io8-iO0, 


I went back to the Pentagon to protest against a number of 
these people, and to my amazement I found that they had 
all been invited, and they had all accepted, and some of 
them were already on their way to Japan.* 

The Committee report had this to say about Dr. Graves: 

We do not accuse Mr. Graves of being a Communist. But it 
amazes us that one with so evident a lack of political and 
social discernment, with such apparent lack of objectivity, 
should be retained as a directing officer in what purports to 
be the representative organization for all the social sciences 
and humanities. Mr. Graves still holds his position, though 
the Cox Committee hearings brought out his extensive 
record of Communist-front affiliations. This leads us to con- 
clude one of two things; either his personal power is 
astounding or the extreme political slant of an executive 
is deemed of no moment by that tax-exempt agency of the 

In writing the platform for the Communist League, Marx and 
Engels predicted that the proletariat would "use its political su- 
premacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to 
centralize all instruments of production in the hand of the state, 
i.e„ of the proletariat organized as a ruling class.” A considerable 
number of the planks of the Communist Manifesto have become 
part of the law of our land; but this has been accomplished not 
through a seizure of power by a "proletariat” but through the mis- 
guided efforts of our intellectuals. Most of these intellectuals lead a 
life remote from the economic realities of society. Educators, in 
general, are among the most Valuable of our citizens. But they 
usually do not know the market place; their ideas of how an econ- 
omy should or can run are often as impractical as they are idealis- 
tic. True, they can sometimes support unrealistic theories with a 
mass of empirical data, but it is usually both incomplete and un- 

* Ibid., p. aoi. 

}Il>id.,p, 55, 


sound because it excludes vital factors not susceptible to empirical 

The undeniable fact is that the changes which have taken place 
in the United States were not the result of the "despotic inroads on 
the right of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois produc- 
tion.” They were the result of continuous propaganda in the form 
of biased education. This propaganda has nearly convinced the 
American people that the Marxian formula is good for it. 

The fog-bound intellectuals who have advocated change on the 
theory that things are not as rosy as they should be and, therefore, 
anything else would be better, have blindly permitted themselves 
to be led into the path of socialism. Whereas, today they generally 
despise communism, the intellectual proponents of change in 
America still consider socialism as eminently respectable. They 
still do not see the central identity of communism and other forms 
of socialism; they believe that a gradual transition of our society to 
one in which “production” is "for use and not for profits” can pre- 
vail without any suppression of freedom. The bloody extermina- 
tion of liberty in Russia is, to these intellectuals, merely an evi- 
dence that the Stalinist variety of socialism is reprehensible. They 
are disappointed lovers, rather than true opponents. They are 
blind to this fact: whether the approach to socialism is by way of 
force or soft propaganda, the system will inevitably call for the 
rape of the masses, for the suppression of liberty and freedom. 

The ideas of socialism have too long been supported in our 
country by fashions of thought which, in turn, have been heavily 
financed by foundations. Critics of foundation activity have won- 
dered, indeed, why foundations have had so little interest in sev- 
eral obvious fields of “venturing.” They might well "venture” 
heavily into studies of what is worth preserving in our system and 
in our society; into education that promotes traditions and estab- 
lished values; into public-affairs programs which promote national 
pride and national ambitions. 

There is some hope. The foundations today seem to be slightly 
more cautious in supporting Socialist politics under the disguise of 
education and research than before the Congressional investiga- 


tions took place. But caution is not enough. In addition to taking 
care to see that their funds are not used for anti-social purposes, 
it behooves them also to support constructive programs in the so- 
cial sciences, in education and in public affairs. 

A number of foundations have made a substantial effort to this 
end. The Lilly Endowment made possible, through a relatively 
modest grant, the publication of the incisive criticism of modern 
social science to which I have referred, written by Professor 
Pitirim A. Sorokin, Fads and Foibles in Modern Sociology and 
Related Sciences . The Bollingen Foundation publishes unusually 
interesting books and supports scholars of merit in fields of cul- 
ture usually neglected by other foundations. Even The Social Sci- 
ence Research Council must be given a special award of merit for 
recently supporting the brilliant but unorthodox work of Eric 
Voegelin, Order and History .* The Foundation for Foreign Affairs 
has supported a number of authors critical of communism, social- 
ism and “liberalism/’ and authors of conservative books. The Ford 
Foundation directly and indirectly supports some research in 
communism and may, in the end, contribute to a better under- 
standing of this scourge of mankind. The work of the Erhart 
Foundation, the Volker Fund, The Richardson Foundation, the 
Pew Foundation, the American Economic Foundation, and a few 
others has been unorthodox enough to support conservative writ- 
ers and projects. 

There is still hope that the trustees of some of those foundations 
which have acted as the financial underwriters of socialism in the 
United States may force a change in the ways of the organiza- 
tions whose cerebral management they have neglected. 

• Louisiana State University Press, 1957, 




Foundation activity has nowhere had a greater impact than in 
the field of foreign affairs. It has conquered public opinion and 
has largely established the international-political goals of our 
country. A few major foundations with internationalist tendencies 
created or fostered a varied group of organizations which now 
dominate the research, the education, and the supply of experts 
in the field. Among such instalments are the Council on Foreign 
Relations, the Foreign Policy Association, the Institute of Pacific 
Relations, the United Nations Association, and the conferences 
and seminars held by American universities on international rela- 
tions and allied subjects. 

It would be difficult to find a single foundation-supported or- 
ganization of any substance which has not favored the United 
Nations or similar global schemes; fantastically heavy foreign aid 
at the burdensome expense of the taxpayer; meddling in the colo- 
nial affairs of other nations; and American military commitments 
over the globe. Though the sums of money put up by the interna- 
tionalist-minded foundations may seem relatively small in compar- 
ison with larger grants spent elsewhere, they have enabled their 
satellite or subsidized organizations to play a conspicuous and 
dominating role. This was comparatively easy to accomplish be- 
cause there was no organized or foundation-supported opposition. 



The influence of the foundation complex in internationalism has 
reached far into government, into the policymaking circles of Con- 
gress and into the State Department. This has been effected 
through the pressure of public opinion, mobilized by the instru- 
ments of the foundations; through the promotion of foundation- 
favorites as teachers and experts in foreign affairs; through a domi- 
nation of the learned journals in international affairs; through the 
frequent appointment of State Department officials to foundation 
jobs; and through the frequent appointment of foundation officials 
to State Department jobs. 

At least one foreign foundation has had a strong influence on 
our foreign policy. The Rhodes Scholarship Fund of Great Britain, 
created to improve England's international public relations but 
not registered here as a foreign agent, has gained great influence 
in the United States for British ideas. It has accomplished this by 
annually selecting a choice group of promising young men for 
study in England. The usually Anglophile alumni of this system 
are to be found in eminent positions in legislation, administration, 
and education and in the ranks of American foundation officials. 
They form a patronage network of considerable importance. Dr. 
Frank Aydelotte in a book, The Rhodes Trust 1905-195} pub- 
lished in 1956, reported; “The influence of this group on Ameri- 
can educational practice and particularly on the rapidly increas- 
ing maturity and breadth of methods of instruction in American 
institutions of higher learning, has been immense.” He continued: 
“The number of those going into government is constantly increas- 

Of a total of 1,372 American Rhodes scholars up to 1953, 431 
held or hold positions in teaching and educational administration 
(among them, 31 college presidents); 113 held government posi- 
tions; 70 held positions in press and radio; and 14 were executives 
in other foundations. Dr. Aydelotte remarks: “One indication of 
the success of operations of the Rhodes Scholarships in America is 
the remarkable way in which they have inspired other founda- 
tions.” He reports that the Guggenheim fellowships and the pro- 


gram of the Commonwealth Fund set up by Mr. Harkness and 
several similar programs were developed with the aid of officials 
of the Rhodes fund. 

Dean Rusk, president of The Rockefeller Foundation, and sev- 
eral of the staff members of that foundation are Rhodes schol- 
ars. Mr. Henry Allen Moe, the director of the Guggenheim foun- 
dation, and O. C. Carmichael, former president of the Carnegie 
foundation, are Rhodes Scholars. Senator J. W. Fulbright, Con- 
gressmen C. R. Clason, R. Hale, and C. B. Albert, and 14 Ameri- 
can State legislators are also Rhodes alumni. Among the many 
Rhodes scholars connected with our Department of State are these: 
Ambassador to the Netherlands S. K. Hornbeck (formerly Chief 
of Far Eastern Affairs in the Department); B. M. Hulle (former 
Chief of North European Affairs in the Department); W. Walter 
Butterworth (former Assistant Secretary of State for Eastern Af- 
fairs, U. S. Ambassador to Sweden, Deputy Chief U. S. Mission 
to London); Walter Gordon (U. S. Embassy in London, in charge 
of Economic Affairs with the rank of minister); and G. C. Mc- 
Ghee (Ambassador to Turkey). Before becoming president of 
The Rockefeller Foundation, Dean Rusk served as a deputy Un- 
der-secretary of State. Dr. Aydelotte reports that, in addition, 
12 Rhodes scholars were attached to various intergovernmental 
agencies (ILO, UN, etc.). 

It may not be merely coincidental to this subject that Cecil 
Rhodes, who created the Scholarships, and Andrew Carnegie 
were friends. The latter may have learned from the former the 
technique of accomplishing great effects with relatively modest 
means. Carnegie contributed but a small part of his wealth to The 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; yet this compar- 
atively small unit grew to have gigantic influence on American 
foreign affairs. 

Just as there have been interlocks and a "concentration of power” 
in education and in social-science research in domestic areas, 
there has been a similar combination in the field of foreign policy. 
The major components of the concentration in internationalism 
have been The Carnegie Corporation, The Carnegie Endowment 


for International Peace, The Rockefeller Foundation, and, re- 
cently, The Ford Foundation. I have mentioned some of their 
more important satellites. Then there are the “conferences.*' 

One of the most important activities of the foundations and as- 
sociated groups operating in the international field consists of pro- 
moting conference after conference and forum after forum for the 
discussion of international affairs. These would serve a useful 
purpose were it not for the fact that they are almost invariably 
made into platforms for the special points of view which these 
groups favor. 

A common character of the meetings frequently held all over 
the country under the auspices of or in cooperation with the or- 
gans of the internationalist foundations is that they regularly pre- 
sent speakers favorable to the sentiments of these supporters. The 
speakers, almost invariably and ad nauseam, advocate aid for 
underdeveloped countries “with no strings attached’*; distribution 
of American foreign aid through the United Nations rather than 
through American agencies; recognition of Communist China; 
membership for Communist China in the United Nations; Ameri- 
can abandonment of atomic weapons without guarantees for sim- 
ilar disarmament by our enemy. Through their virtually monop- 
olistic control of the market place for ideas in the area of 
international relations, these organizations exert an influence far 
beyond the weight of the general followers of “liberal” politics. 
Their opponents enjoy little or no financial support. Thus, the 
intensity of the “internationalist” campaign produces propaganda 
returns even among businessmen and groups which would or- 
dinarily, without the blasting of such propaganda, be inclined to 
a more conservative point of view. 

For example, the National Review of March 7, 1956, called 
attention to the fact that The U. S. Chamber of Commerce had 
been among the sponsors of a recent Midwest Residential Seminar 
on World Affairs, held near St. Louis. It was in strange company. 
Among the other supporting organizations were The American 
Labor Education Service, The American Association for the 
United Nations, The Social Science Foundation, The Institute of 


International Relations, The Carnegie Endowment for Interna- 
tional Peace, The American Library Association, The Foreign 
Policy Association, and The American Foundation for Political 
Education. The featured speaker at this seminar was John Carter 
Vincent, discharged from the State Department as a loyalty risk . 


When Andrew Carnegie established The Carnegie Endowment 
for International Peace, he gave the managers of this fund a dif- 
ficult task. How were they to go about promoting peace? They 
seem to have had no very clear idea until Dr. Nicholas Murray 
Butler, in whose hands Mr. Carnegie put the initial direction of 
the fund, got excited about the peril of the Allies in World War I 
and decided that the best way to establish peace was to help get 
the United States into the War. To this end he began to use the 
Endowment funds. 

When the war was ended, that issue was gone. Support for the 
League of Nations gave the Endowment one new outlet for its 
energies and its funds, but more scope than this was needed for 
the propaganda machine which it had become. A fruitful guide 
for operations was found in Dr. Butler's personal shibboleth of 
“the international mind,” a phrase to which he was devoted in 
speeches and writings. 

The concept of 41 the international mind” had considerable 
value. Americans generally, in Dr. Butler’s day, were not as well 
informed in international affairs as might be desirable; efforts to 
educate them were commendable enough. But Dr. Butler went 
further than a mere desire to give us a better international educa- 
tion. He seemed to have had an idea that if only Americans got 
more “international-minded" the cause of peace would be pro- 
moted. Perhaps this is an exaggeration, as I state it, but there is 
no question that Dr. Butler was somewhat possessed of the con- 
cept of "intemational-mindedness." 

At any rate, a powerful propaganda machine came into being. 
Used objectively, it could have been of enormous service to the 
country. But, as is likely to be the case, it turned to advocacy. 


When you control a propaganda vehicle, it is tempting to use it 
to promote your own program. 

The Reece Committee said of the Endowment’s work: 

An extremely powerful propaganda machine was created. 
It spent many millions of dollars in: 

The production of masses of material for distribution; 

The creation and support of large numbers of inter- 
national policy clubs, and other local organizations at 
colleges and elsewhere; 

The underwriting and dissemination of many books 
on various subjects, through the “International Mind Al- 
coves” and the "International Relations Clubs and Cent- 
ers" which it organized all over the country; 

The collaboration with agents of publicity, such as 
newspaper editors; 

The preparation of material to be used in school text 
books, and cooperation with publishers of text books to 
incorporate this material; 

The establishing of professorships at the colleges and 
the training and indoctrination of teachers; 

The financing of lecturers and the importation of 
foreign lecturers and exchange professors; 

The support of outside agencies touching the interna- 
tional field, such as the Institute of Internatio7\al Educa- 
tion, the Foreign Policy Association, the American As- 
sociation for the Advancement of Science, the American 
Council on Education, the American Council of Learned 
Societies, the American Historical Association, the Amer- 
ican Association of International Conciliation, the Insti- 
tute of Pacific Relations, the International Parliamentary 
Union and others, and acting as mid-wife at the birth of 
some of them, # . 

The Carnegie Endowment was utterly frank in disclosing its 
propaganda function. It used terms frequently such as the "ed- 
f Reece Committee Report, p. 171. 


ucation of public opinion.” This is not “public education,” but 
molding public opinion. The Committee report indicated that one 
thing seemed “utterly clear: no private group should have the 
power or the right to decide what should be read and taught in 
our schools and colleges/* yet this is what the Endowment 
sought to do in “educating public opinion.” 

The influence of this foundation may be illustrated by the func- 
tions held by its former president, Alger Hiss* He was a trustee of 
The Woodrow Wilson Foundation, a director of the executive 
committee of the American Association for the United Nations, a 
director of the American Peace Society, a trustee of the World 
Peace Federation, and a director of the American Institute of Pa- 
cific Relations. 

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace made its 
position clear. Its 1934 Yearbook complained about the 

economic nationalism which is still running riot and which 
is the greatest obstacle to the reestablishment of prosperity 
and genuine peace. * * *.* 

and referred to nationalism as “this violently reactionary move- 
ment.” Nationalism is held to be “violently reactionary” in the 
United States, but the organizations supported by the Endow- 
ment apparently feel that nationalism abroad is a fine thing. Un- 
der the slogan of anticolonialism, they have supported rabid na- 
tionalistic movements, often Communist stimulated, in unde- 
veloped areas, and have underwritten measures abroad highly 
detrimental to American prestige and American private invest- 

The 1946 report of The Rockefeller Foundation also minced no 
words in advocating globalism. It read: 

The challenge of the future is to make this world one 
wor ld — a world truly free to engage in common and 
constructive intellectual efforts that will serve the welfare 
of mankind everywhere, 

♦ Ibid., p. 169, 


The ideal of a united world as a basis for permanent peace is 
a splendid one. But the executives of the international-minded 
foundations have committed two serious errors in promoting it. 
One is that they have been in too great haste to translate into 
immediate action an ideal which might take another century 
of extremely careful planning and adjustment to accomplish. The 
other has been that the ‘‘common world” which they have en- 
visioned and to which they have sought to rush us is unquestion- 
ably an extended, international collectivism. 

The Reece Committee came to this conclusion: 

The weight of evidence before this Committee, which the 
foundations have made no serious effort to rebut, indicates 
that the form of globalism which the foundations have so 
actively promoted and from which our foreign policy has 
suffered seriously, relates definitely to a collectivist point of 
\dew. Despite vehement disclaimers of bias, despite plati- 
tudinous affirmations of loyalty to American traditions, the 
statements filed by those foundations whose operations touch 
on foreign policy have produced no rebuttal to the evidence 
of support of collectivism.* 

In an affidavit filed with the Reece Committee, Dr. Felix Witt- 
mer, former Associate Professor of the Social Studies at the New 
Jersey State Teachers College, described his experiences as the 
adviser to one of the International Relations Clubs founded by 
The Carnegie Endowment. 

Dr. Wittmer said that there were about a thousand of these 
clubs and that, as a result of association with them, a great pro- 
portion of the student members had acquired strongly leftist 
tendencies.f At regional conferences, said Dr. Wittmer, “a large 
majority of those students who attended favored views which 
came close to that of the Kremlin/’ 

Speakers were provided by The Carnegie Endowment. Among 

• Ibid., p. 169. 
t Ibid., p. 174. 


the speakers supplied to the club at New Jersey Teachers College 
was Alger Hiss. When Dr. Wittmer protested against receiving 
Hiss as a speaker, the Secretary of the Endowment, said Dr. Witt- 
mer, reminded him “in no uncertain terms that our club, like all 
the hundreds of other clubs, was under the direction of The Car- 
negie Endowment for International Peace, which had for years 
liberally supplied it with reading material, and which contributed 
funds to cover the honoraria of conference speakers.” 

Radical infiltration in the club of which Dr, Wittmer was ad- 
viser became so pronounced that he resigned his position. 


Among the literature distributed by The Carnegie Endowment 
was some produced by The Foreign Policy Association, which it 
heavily supported. The research director of this organization for 
years was Vera Micheles Dean. A staff report to the Reece Com- 
mittee made this comment upon Mrs. Dean: 

Reference has already been made to Mrs. Dean who, ac- 
cording to The New York Times a few years ago, made a 
"plea for socialism” to 600 alumnae at Vassar College, saying 
our quarrel with communism must not be over its ends but 
over its methods, and urging a foreign policy backing Social- 
ist programs. 

Speaking of her book Europe and the US. in the book 
review section of The New York Herald Tribune on May 7, 
1950, Harry Baehr, an editorial writer for that paper, wrote: 
”In other words, she considers it possible that the world 
may not be divided on sharp ideological lines but that 
there may yet be at least economic exchanges which will 
temper the world struggle and by reducing the disparity in 
standards of living between Eastern and Western Europe 
gradually abolish the conditions which foster communism 
and maintain it as a dangerous inhumane tyranny in those 
nations which now profess the Stalinist creed.” * 

♦ Reece Committee Hearings I, p. 901. See also Report , p. 564. 


Among the Foreign Policy Association’s products were the Head- 
line Books , One of these, World of the Great Powers , was writ- 
ten by Max Lerner, a leftist who, conceding that “there are un- 
doubtedly valuable elements in the capitalist economic organiza- 
tions/' proceeded to tell the readers to whom The Carnegie En- 
dowment circulated liis work that: 

If democracy is to survive, it too must move toward social- 
ism. * # # It is the only principle that can organize the 
restless energies of the world's peoples.* 


The Council on Foreign Relations, another member of the inter- 
national complex, financed both by the Rockefeller and Carnegie 
foundations, overwhelmingly propagandizes the globalist concept. 
This organization became virtually an agency of the govern- 
ment when World War II broke out. The Rockefeller Founda- 
tion had started and financed certain studies known as v JThe War 
and Peace Studies, manned largely by associates of the Council; 
the State Department, in due course, took these Studies over, re- 
taining the major personnel which The Council on Foreign Rela* 
tions had supplied, 


One of the propaganda objectives of The Council on Foreign Re- 
lations was promotion of the “historical blackout." The 1946 Re- 
port of The Rockefeller Foundation, one of the supporters of The 
Council, contained this: 

The Committee on Studies of the Council on Foreign Re- 
lations is concerned that the debunking journalistic cam- 
paign following World War I should not be repeated and 
believes that the American public deserves a clear and 
competent statement of our basic aims and activities during 
the second World War.f 

* Reece Committee Report, p, 176, 
t Ibid.j p. 178. 


This statement deserves pause. It has obvious political intention. 
It cannot be considered objective. Several eminent historians have 
written books critical of much of the government position in 
World War I. It is nothing short of reprehensible for a tax-exempt 
organization to smear such critical historians with the term “ de- 
bunking journalism /' 

The plan called for a three-volume history of World War II, in 
which there was to be no “debunking/ 1 Note that this clearly was 
to be no objective study. The official propaganda of World War 
II was to be perpetuated. As Professor Charles Austin Beard put 
it: “In short, they hope that, among other things, the policies 
and measures of Franklin D. Roosevelt will escape in the coming 
years the critical analysis, evaluation and exposition that befell 
the policies and measures of Woodrow Wilson and the Entente 
Allies after World War I. # 

Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, in The Historical Blackout and 
Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, described what amounted to a 
conspiracy to prevent the American people from learning the truth. 
This conspiracy was foundation-supported. The Rockefeller Foun- 
dation allotted §139,000 to the production of the three-volume 
history which was to debar “debunking/' This is the same Rocke- 
feller Foundation whose current president has, in two recent ad- 
dresses, proclaimed its insistence on continuing to support “con- 


I have discussed this catastrophic organization in some detail in 
an earlier chapter. It need only be added that it was one of the 
most important elements in the complex of international-minded 
organizations financed principally by the Rockefeller and Car- 
negie foundations. To the trustees of The Rockefeller Founda- 
tion, The Carnegie Corporation, and The Carnegie Endowment 
for International Peace, I recommend that they place a large 
sign in each of their board rooms reading “REMEMBER IPR,“ 
as a constant reminder of what disastrous results can flow from 

Ibid,, p. 178. 


abandoning supervision of activities financed by them and dele- 
gating their authority and judgment to intermediary organiza- 


There have been interlocks between the international-minded 
foundations and the Federal government even as early as World 
War I. The Endowment went so far as to state in its 1934 Year- 
book that it 

is becoming an unofficial instrument of international policy, 
taking up here and there the ends and threads of inter- 
national problems and questions which the governments 
{sic) find it difficult to handle, and through private in- 
itiative reaching conclusions which are not of a formal na- 
ture but which unofficially find their way into the policies 
of governments {sic)* 

If we turn back to an earlier Endowment report (1925), we 
may recognize that this proud statement in the 1934 report repre- 
sents a paean of victory. The 1925 report said: 

Underneath and behind all these undertakings there re- 
mains the task to instruct and to enlighten public opinion 
so that it may not only guide but compel the action of 
governments and public officers in the direction of construc- 
tive progress.f 

That a foundation could openly propose a plan to influence public 
opinion to the point where it, in turn, would coerce government, 
is really quite astounding. With the great power of its money and 
its patronage, such a major foundation carries the capacity to do 
just that. 


Considerable evidence exists that some of the major founda- 
tions and a group of satellite organizations operating in the field 

* Ibid., p. 177. 
j- Ibid., p. 178. 


of international relations had ignored American interests in pro- 
moting “internationalism” of an unrealistic and dangerous na- 
ture. Professor Kenneth Colegrove testified: 

In my opinion, a great many of the staffs of the foundations 
have gone way beyond Wendell Willkie with reference to 
internationalism and globalism. * * * There is undoubt- 
edly too much money put into studies which support global- 
ism and internationalism. You might say that the other 
side has not been as fully developed as it should be,* 

This opinion was emphatically shared by an American dip- 
lomat who should know his facts, Mr. Spruille Braden, former 
Assistant Secretary of State. He wrote to me: 

I have the very definite feeling that these various founda- 
tions you mention very definitely do exercise both overt 
and covert influences on our foreign relations and that 
their influences are counter to the fundamental principles 
on which this nation was founded and which have made it 

The foundations to which I had referred were: “Carnegie En- 
dowment, Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Rhodes 
Scholarship Trust.” To those mentioned might be added the For- 
eign Policy Association, the Council on Foreign Relations, the 
Institute of Pacific Relations, and the United Nations Association, 
all part of what the Committee majority called a “concentration 
of power.” 

Professor Colegrove examined a list of books distributed by the 
Carnegie Endowment through its “International Mind Alcoves” 
and through the International Relations Clubs and Centers which 
it created and supported in hundreds of universities and colleges. 
His comments on some of thesej run from “globalist,” through 

* Ibid., p. 168. 
f Ibid., p. 169. 
x Report, p. 173. 


“ultra-globalist,” “Marxian slant” and “subtle propaganda along 
Communist lines,” to “pro-Communist” and “well-known Com- 

One wonders what kind of an “international mind” The Car- 
negie Endowment for International Peace intended to promote. 
The incomplete list of books which Professor Colegrove examined 
included works by such writers as Anna Louise Strong (a Com- 
munist); Owen Lattimore (pro-Communist); T. A. Bisson (pro- 
Communist); Professor Nathaniel Peffer (who advocated our giv- 
ing up in Korea, “eating crow,” recognizing Red China, assisting 
her in her financing, and admitting her to the United Nations); 
and Harold J. Laski (the philosopher of British socialism). 

Dr. Wittmer mentioned in his sworn statement that the Endow- 
ment had distributed books also by Corliss Lamont (a noted pro- 
Communist); Ruth Benedict (co-author with Gene Weltfish of a 
pamphlet finally barred by the War Department; her co-author, 
be it remembered, refused to state under oath whether or not she 
was a Communist); Evans Clark (a former executive of the 20th 
Century Fund of wide Communist-front associations); and Alex- 
ander Werth (a European apologist for many Communist causes), 


The foundations participating in the combination of tax-exempt 
institutions in international affairs may say that they have used ex- 
perts where they have found them and that, indeed, if these have 
been globalist, it is because most experts have the globalist point 
of view. The Reece Committee report had this to say; 

It may well be said that a majority of the “experts” in the 
international field are on the side of globalism. It would be 
amazing if this were otherwise, after so many years of 
gigantic expenditure by foundations in virtually sole sup- 
port of the globalist point of view. Professors and re- 
searchers have to eat and raise families. They cannot them- 
selves spend the money to finance research and publications. 
The road to eminence in international areas, therefore, 


just as in the case of the social sciences generally, is by 
way of foundation grants or support.* 

Foreign policy is largely made by "experts” — technicians — in- 
side the State Department and other "experts” who influence 
policy from the outside. Through the operation of the foundation 
complex in the international field, therefore, the overwhelming 
majority of these experts, both inside and outside the Depart- 
ment, have been indoctrinated with the globalist point of view 
which the combine has fostered. 


The "international-inind” obsession of The Carnegie Endowment 
and its associated organizations has avidly taken up the United 
Nations. No intelligent person could doubt the desirability of an 
effective and sensibly designed international organization. But 
the group of foundations and organizations of which The Car- 
negie Endowment is a leading member apparently believes that 
any organization should be supported if it is international. Noth- 
ing else could explain the truly intemperate propaganda which 
has been launched to indoctrinate our people into blind support 
of the United Nations. There has been no disposition whatever 
to be objective, to criticize what is fallacious and what is dan- 
gerous. There has been no debate on merits. There has been only 
propaganda in support. 

This group of foundations, led by The Carnegie Endowment, 
pours millions of dollars into propaganda to convince us that the 
United Nations organization, as now constituted, is our light and 
our savior. The contrary point of view expressed by many Ameri- 
cans of eminence receives no circulation by this cabal for uncon- 
ditional acceptance of the United Nations and the multitude of 
its affiliates and programs. 

The detailed operation of the UN remains a mystery to most 
Americans. Supported to the extent of great sums by our govern- 
ment, the UN has numerous departments, commissions, and 



agencies busily at work. Some may result in great benefit. Others 
are unquestionably meddlesome, useless, or dangerous. This is 
especially so because the proportion of Communist and Socialist 
representatives on these agencies is usually high. The interests 
of other nations come frequently into conflict with the national 
interests of the United States. Under the pressure of foreign gov- 
ernments, exerted often by a combination of collectivists, the 
United Nations many times has produced resolutions and taken 
steps in ways inimical to America. The Reece Committee report 
urgently suggested that the extent to which foundations have pro- 
moted “the theory that we must subordinate our own economic 
welfare to that of the world in order to have peace is worth an 
investigation of its own." 

A recent publication by UNESCO acutely illustrates the need 
for such an investigation. Several years ago, UNESCO authorized 
the preparation of a series of books on the social sciences. The first 
of these has now appeared. It is called Economics and Action 
and was written by the former French premier, Mend£s-France, 
with a collaborator. There will apparently be no other book on 
economics, so that this volume will stand, and be widely circu- 
lated, as the approved, official United Nations bible on eco- 
nomics. It is a strongly anti-capitalist and frankly, ardently col- 
lectivist piece of work. Others than Socialists, Communists, and 
extreme Keynesians will be horrified to read this UNESCO book, 
largely financed with American dollars. 

It will be interesting to see whether The Carnegie Endowment 
or any of its associated organizations which so urgently propa- 
gandize for the United Nations and UNESCO will offer even a 
modest criticism of this publication. 

Who knows what economic worldwide planning is being con- 
cocted by UN agencies, much of which will later be promoted 
domestically by these foundations, following their thesis that UN 
is the only road to peace? Nor should we forget the attempts to 
impose on us changes in our own basic declarations of human 
rights. That proposed by UN ignored the right to hold private 
property. Indeed in the Economic and Social Council of the 


United Nations a resolution, adopted against the opposition of the 
United States, established the principle that no government may 
interfere with the right of other nations to expropriate or impair 
the property of its nationals. This is a discriminatory measure 
against private American investment abroad. 


The National Education Association has worked overtime to incul- 
cate into our children the idea that UN is a magnificent enter- 
prise, upon which rests the world’s hope. Imagine this being 
included in its Education for International Understanding in 
American Schools — Suggestions and Recommendations, partly 
financed by The Carnegie Corporation: 

Through its Security Council, every dispute that affects the 
peace of the world can be brought before an international 
body endowed with authority to take all necessary steps for 
the restraint of aggression.* 

As the Committee report said: 

To impose this concept upon our children in the schools 
is to teach them nonsense. The futility of the United Na- 
tions in settling international disputes has been tragically 
evident. And this futility, moreover, is not the result of a 
failure on our part to be “international minded.” 

This book was prepared by the NEA’s Committee on Interna- 
tional Relations, The Association for Supervision and Curriculum 
Development, and The National Council for the Social Studies. 
The use of the term “social studies” or “core studies” should al- 
ways give pause . It is likely to indicate that children are to be fed 
“ educational ” material in accordance with the recommendations 
of the Commission on Social Studies of the American Historical 
Association to which I have earlier referred — propaganda toward 
a collectivism which now has broadened to international collec • 
tivism — globalism . 

The same volume asserts that we must conform our national 
•lbld.,p, 192. 


economic policies to an international world economy; that the 
“nation-state system” is obsolete; that part of our political inde. 
pendence must be surrendered; that we must engage on a 
“planned economic cooperation on a worldwide scale”; and that 
our children must be taught to become propagandists for these 
ideas.* The school is to be a militant agent in the campaign for 
the globalist idea, 


Significant, too, was the creation of an International Social Sci- 
ence Research Council. This was called into being through 
UNESCO action and at the instance of Alva Myrdal. Mrs. Myrdal, 
a militant Socialist who was once denied a visa by our State 
Department, is the wife of Gunnar Myrdal, the author of An Amer- 
ican Dilemma . Mrs. Myrdal was director of the Department of 
Social Sciences of UNESCO when she proposed the formation of 
an international SSRC in 1951* The first Council meeting took 
place in Paris in December of that year. Donald Young took part 
in this meeting and played an important role in the organization 
of the Council. He was at the time president of The Russell 
Sage Foundation and had previously been president of The So- 
cial Science Research Council; he is one of the central characters 
of the dramatis personae of the foundation complex. Another of 
the chief American participants was Professor Otto Klineberg of 
Columbia University, well known as a social scientist far to the 
left and, incidentally, a contributor to An American Dilemma . 

This new organization is worth watching. Apparently it is to 
act internationally in the clearing house and directive fashion in 
which the SSRC functions domestically. It seems to have intended 
to ape the undemocratic set-up of its American counterpart. The 
charter proposed at the organization meeting provided not for a 
democratic representation of social scientists from the partici- 
pating nations but, instead, for a method of self-perpetuating 
domination similar to that which I have earlier described as in 
use in the domestic SSRC. This form of organization would have 
•Ibid,, p. 193. 


permitted the domination and utilization of this prestige or- 
ganization by a closed clique, to the exclusion of all dissidents 
and nonconformists. 


If only the boards of trustees of great foundations, overwhelm- 
ingly composed of responsible and well-meaning men of dis- 
tinction, would come to realize that the great funds they ad- 
minister can be used to as devastating an effect in the world of 
men's minds as can the nuclear bombs in man's physical worldl 
To rely upon professional employees to do their thinking for them 
can be hazardous to an extreme. If that seems a strong statement, 
consider the case of Mr, Hiss. 

In 1947 Mr. Hiss was president of The Carnegie Endowment 
for International Peace. Its Yearbook then contained Recommen- 
dations of the President to the Trustees. Now that the United 
Nations had been established in New York, said Mr. Hiss, “the 
opportunity for an endowed American institution having the ob- 
jectives, tradition and prestige of the Endowment, to support and 
serve the United Nations is very great." He then recommended 
that the Endowment create a program centering its activities on 
popularizing the United Nations and '“assisting" it. This pro- 
gram, he said, should be “widely educational" and should not 
only create public opinion but “aid in the adoption of wise pol- 
icies, both by our own government in its capacity as a member of 
the United Nations, and by the United Nations Organization as a 

The following section of Mr. Hiss’s recommendations is worth 
reproducing in its entirety: 

The number and importance of decisions in the field of 
foreign relations with which the United States will be faced 
during the next few years are of such magnitude that the 
widest possible stimulation of public education in this field 
is of major and pressing importance. In furthering its educa- 
tional objectives the Endowment should utilize its existing 
resources, such as The International Relations Clubs in 


the colleges, and International Conciliation, and should 
strengthen its relationships with existing agencies interested 
in the field of foreign affairs. These relationships should in- 
clude close collaboration with other organizations principally 
engaged in the study of foreign affairs, such as The Council 
on Foreign Relations, The Foreign Policy Association, The 
Institute of Pacific Relations, the developing university 
centers of international studies, and local community groups 
interested in foreign affairs of which the Cleveland Council 
on World Affairs and the projected World Affairs Council 
in San Francisco are examples. 

Of particular importance is the unusual opportunity of 
reaching large segments of the population by establishing 
relations of a rather novel sort with the large national 
organizations which today are desirous of supplying their 
members with objective information on public affairs, in- 
cluding international issues, These organizations — designed 
to serve, respectively, the broad interests of business, church, 
women’s, farm, labor, veterans’, educational, and other large 
groups of our citizens — are not equipped to set up foreign 
policy research staffs of their own. The Endoiument should 
supply these organizations with basic information about 
the United Nations and should assist them both in selecting 
topics of interest to their members and in presenting those 
topics so as to be most readily understood by their members. 
We should urge The Foreign Policy Association and The 
Institute of Pacific Relations to supply similar service on 
other topics of international significance. 

Exploration should also be made by the Endowment as to 
the possibilities of increasing the effectiveness of the radio 
and motion pictures in public education on world affairs.* 
To what extent Mr. Hiss managed to get his program rolling 
before his departure for prison, I do not know. He was not long 
enough in office to perpetrate on the American public as much 
damage as he was capable of. But one can well see today the 

# Ibid., p. 184. 


execution, by his successors, of the policies formulated in the 
1947 Yearbook . And it is worthy of note that his recommendations 
speak in terms of using a complex or close interlocking associa- 
tion with other foundations and kindred groups, including the 
nefarious Institute of Pacific Relations. 

A propaganda agency such as The Carnegie Endowment can 
so easily become a vehicle for intended subversion. What is 
equally dangerous is that it can fall into the administrative hands 
of incompetent, negligent, or misguided persons, against whom 
the trustees, ultimately responsible for its action, can protect 
themselves only through either the most attentive alertness or 
through an abandonment of the basically hazardous occupation 
of propaganda. 

As Dr. Frederick P. Keppel, himself president of The Carnegie 
Corporation, a sister organization to the Endowment, put it*: 

Danger arises whenever any group with power in its hands, 
whether it be a state legislature, or the board of a univer- 
sity or of a foundation, believes it to be its business to use 
its power to direct opinion. Any such group is a dangerous 
group, regardless of the manner of its make-up, and re- 
gardless of whether its action is conscious or unconscious, 
and, if conscious, whether benign or sinister in purpose. 

Mr. Joseph E. Johnson, president of The Carnegie Endowment, 
played down the role of his foundation in world affairs in his 
statement to the Reece Committee. Fie attributed changes in 
American attitudes toward foreign relations to the problems cre- 
ated by modem social and political upheavals, by new inventions, 
and by two world wars. This argument is not convincing. Even if 
the Endowment merely reinforced what was a basic trend, its ac- 
tivities could not help but have a strong, accelerating impact on 
public opinion. The Endowment, in any event, has not confined 
itself to studies and discussions of public issues but has engaged 
in political propaganda for particular points of view, much of 
this propaganda directed to influencing legislation, 

• Quoted with approval in Andrews, Philanthropic Foundations, p. S03. 




Among the giant foundations, The Ford Foundation is by far 
the largest. It was established in 1936. In 1949, the trustees finally 
arrived at a definitive program to “carry out the broader purposes 
envisaged for the Foundation by its founders and benefactors*' 
and to reorganize within the framework of policies supposedly es- 
tablished by Henry Ford and his son Edsel. This program was the 
result of a mountain of labor by a committee of advisers under 
the leadership of H. Rowan Gaither, who later became president 
of the Foundation, The result did not differ greatly from the pat- 
tern of operations of earlier foundations such as those of Carnegie, 
Rockefeller, Sage, and others created for social and scholarly pur- 

The one real novelty in the Ford operation was its size. It ad- 
ministered billions in capital, and an annual income of some 
$100,000,000. The challenge and the responsibility of this wealth 
are beyond comparison with any historic precedent. The power 
to spend these trust funds for good or for bad, or simply to piddle 
them away in squandering ventures called for precautions in de- 
cision making far more serious than those required in a business 

In 1956 Dr. Henry T, Heald, formerly president of New York 
University, became president of The Ford Foundation, succeed- 
ing Mr. Gaither, who was moved up from president to chairman 



of the board. The appointment of Dr. Heald was encouraging, not 
only because of his ability, character and experience but also be- 
cause it may indicate a growing awareness on the part of the trus- 
tees of the many grave mistakes which had been made by the 
Foundation during the years which followed the adoption of the 
1949 platform. 

There are some signs that Dr. Heald realizes that household 
alterations are in order. He has stated in public utterances that 
the Foundation's program is subject to continuous review and 
evaluation; that existing programs are sometimes dropped and 
that changes and the creation of new programs follow only upon 
careful study. He must certainly understand the importance of 
the Foundation’s directive personnel and, while only limited al- 
terations have been made to date in the personnel setup, a new 
broom cannot, after all, always sweep clean overnight. 

Dr. Heald stated in one address that four fifths of the money 
spent by the Foundation to the end of 1956 (about a billion) 
was devoted to education. His emphasis on education is in it- 
self very encouraging. However, he used the term “education” 
in its broadest sense. For a foundation “that attempts to work for 
the public welfare, the principal instrument through which it can 
work,” he said, “is education in general and higher education 
in particular.” In supporting this statement, he uses an argu- 
ment typical of foundation executives, the alleged need for social 
change and the benefits of such change. He suggests that it is 
“virtually impossible to make real and lasting progress for man- 
kind without education and its constant extension in scope and 
improvement in quality.” This statement is beyond questioning. 
But he explains further: “By definition, improvement implies and 
involves change. Change is not something to fear or avoid. Change 
is not only inevitable but desirable. Problems are solved, ills 
corrected, progress made by change.” 

He does add: “But first there must be an admission, a recogni- 
tion that a problem exists. Then men of good will must go about 
changing things.” However, this qualification seems to miss the 
possibility that, as to many “problems,” change is not desirable. 


To illustrate, a democracy is certainly inefficient. Thus, a problem 
exists. That does not mean that change from a democracy is 
desirable. To illustrate again, a problem is created by the fact 
that a centralized government could accomplish many functions 
far more effectively than a federal system. Does that mean that a 
change is needed or desirable? 

Dr. Heald adds: "If nothing needs changing, then we are all 
wasting our time and our resources, for there is nothing really to 
be clone except to feed and clothe people.” This emphasis on 
change is classic among the executives of the "concentration of 
power.” There is, after all, much that a foundation can do, which 
does not involve promoting "change,” in addition to feeding and 
clothing people. No one in his right mind would assert that no im- 
provements in our society are possible or desirable, but the em- 
phasis on change by the newly elected president of the largest 
foundation in the world* implies an eagerness to pursue what 
Professor Colegrove has called the "pathological” approach to re- 
search. Dr. Heald believes in the power of man "to leave the 
world a better place than it was when he entered it.” This is a 
proposition which, again, one can readily accept. But is it true, as 
he says, that the challenge can only be met "by changing the 
environment in which [man] finds himself — always, we hope, for 
the better; always working for social and economic improvements 
in the lot of all people * * *”? Does this concern for betterment 
in the material world of "social and economic improvement” not 
indicate a neglect of the nonmaterial, the spiritual values which 
have at least as much importance as the physical? 

What could be more obvious than that change is desirable 
when it is desirable? But the emphasis so frequently put by foun- 
dation leaders on "change” often results in advocating change be- 
cause it is change — as though there were a certainty of improve- 
ment if there were a change. 

Dr. Heald has adopted the "risk-capital” and "experimentation” 
concepts. It is not yet clear whether his interpretation of these two 

•At the October u, 1956. meeting of the American Council on Education, 


terms follows the general line of the complex. It is encouraging 
to have him say that a foundation sometimes should even support 
the exploration of unpopular ideas. A dedication to the support 
of the nonconformist is most laudable, and we can only hope that 
it is followed. The Ford Foundation has not demonstrated this 
dedication in the past. Quite to the contrary, it has, in most in- 
stances, supported the ruling clique of materialistic social scien- 
tists who once were a minority but long since have become, with 
foundation assistance, a clear majority. I regret that I have not 
seen, in any of Dr. Heald's public utterances, any consciousness 
of the danger of supporting this type of conformity. 

In many areas this ruling clique in the social sciences, so well 
supported by The Ford Foundation and others, advocates change 
of institutions, principles, and methods, and of social, economic, 
and political mechanisms which a great many people (in some in- 
stances a vast majority of the people) wish to have retained as 
they are. Where is the support for those who wish to protect 
something we have, against well-financed movements to change 
it? Is only the man who wants to change something to be given 
foundation support? 

In Dr. Heald’s public statements I have found much to be ad- 
mired and applauded. If I am critical or questioning of some of 
his remarks it is to bring into focus problems of foundation the- 
ory and management which, I believe, sorely need attention and 
discussion. In an address of April 4, 1957, for example, he 
touches on the problem of foundation responsibility by saying 
that "education extends beyond the academic world and into the 
atmosphere of society, which is made up of beliefs and ambitions 
of the aggregate of its members." He follows with this statement: 
"This is where foundations, among others, have an appropriate 
role to play, not in the shaping of those beliefs and ambitions but 
in helping to provide people concerned with them and compe- 
tent to understand, maintain and realize them." Just what does 
this mean? Is it possible to "provide" people competent to "real- 
ize" "ambitions" without, in turn, being responsible for the con- 
tents of what these people "maintain"? Can one intentionally deal 


with change without being responsible for the change which one 

If a foundation makes grants 4, to improve governmental proc- 
esses/' how can it avoid entering the field of politics and partisan 
action? What constitutes '‘improvement”? Such a term involves 
value-concepts and, therefore, offers a problem not subject to so- 
lution through a scientific method of approach free of precon- 
ceived political concepts of value. So many foundation executives 
seem to fail to see the determining influence of a priori assump- 
tions of the "desirable,” of the socially "commendable/ 1 and of 
similar yardsticks for judgment. For this reason they do not seem 
to realize how much of what they do is political. 

Here is an example. The spending of 63 million dollars to ad- 
vance international understanding, desirable as this goal may ap- 
pear, is the result of a priori assumptions regarding ethical and 
practical values, ultimate purposes and potentials. There can be 
no possible objection to the relief of the poor and sick, wherever 
they may suffer. But the expenditure of 58 million dollars in 
overseas development programs "to help the emerging new dem- 
ocratic nations of the world to help themselves” cannot be sep- 
arated from an inherent political intention — or from such a priori 
assumptions as: that these nations are democratic; that their de- 
mocracy, if they have it, is good for them; that the adoption of 
some democratic processes necessarily results in the adoption of 
democratic ideas of peace and justice; that immediate institution 
of democracy in these undeveloped nations is good for mankind; 
and that democracy is better nurtured if supported from the out- 
side than if it stands upon its own feet. I do not mean to con- 
jecture which, if any, of these assumptions are wrong, but to em- 
phasize that they are a priori assumptions. 

In an address on April 8, 1957, Dr. Heald, discussing the Re- 
sponsibilities of Private Philanthropy, indicates an awareness that 
the responsibility of foundations to the public goes beyond the 
mere publication of reports. Foundation activities, he says, in- 
volve “risk, and they require intelligence, judgment and wisdom. 
Their ultimate success or failure forms the basis on which the 


foundations will be judged by the public they serve and which 
gives them the freedom and the opportunity they enjoy.** But 
then Dr. Heald seems to fall into an error conventional to the 
manager of the "concentration.** He identifies the responsibilities 
of a foundation in terms of the promotion of concepts of value. 
He speaks of a foundation’s "freedom to discriminate, to take 
chances, to try to identify the good and make it better.” This 
amounts not to a mere support of controversy but to an actual 
taking of sides on controversial issues. 

There is no general agreement on what is good for society. In 
a democratic society the decision of what is good for it (what 
is right and what is wrong in effect) is decided by a majority. 
The injection of foundation power into the democratic process by 
which the majority makes these value decisions creates an im- 
balance interfering with the concept that public affairs should be 
controlled by the free will of the people. The freedom referred to 
by Dr. Heald implies belief in an intellectually aristocratic £lite 
of foundation managers with the right to influence our fate. Con- 
sistently with this 61 ite concept, he speaks of the opportunity and 
responsibility "to pioneer ahead of public opinion, to do # * * 
things that might not at the time they are done be approved by 
popular vote, to be ahead but not too far ahead.'* Such a right to 
be "ahead" of the people can be exercised by an individual if he 
cares to exercise it. Whether such a right is attributable to a ju- 
ridical person operating with public trust funds, is highly ques- 
tionable. To pioneer ahead of public opinion means indulging 
directly or indirectly in propaganda of a kind that is the sole 
privilege of the citizen and not the right of a tax-exempt organiza- 

I agree with Dr. Heald that "stimulating the development of 
ideas” is a legitimate concern of foundations. But the development 
function should be left to others. The foundation should confine 
itself to giving competing forces a fair and equal chance. Only if 
equal chance is given can free competition in the market place of 
ideas take place. 

Dr. Heald describes the Ford Foundation’s hope of serving our 


society and thus advancing human welfare in general in this man- 
ner: '‘First, to identify existing centers of excellence and con- 
tribute to their continued improvement, and second, to help the 
number of these centers increase.” In selecting these centers, the 
Foundation expects to find "individuals, departments, organiza- 
tions, or entire institutions whose curiosity in the realm of ideas 
holds most promise — as far as this can be determined — for tomor- 
row’s world.” This statement again suggests value judgments of 
a political nature. It is a program which could only be accepted 
as just and sound if equal chance were given to competing ideas 
and to the respective representatives or defenders of these ideas. 
I do not see how those in positions like Dr. Heald's can forget 
that the tax-exemption privilege is granted by all the people, ir- 
respective of their creeds, ideas, and political goals. How can 
a foundation rightly exhibit partisan preferences at the expense 
of that part of the public which does not support these pref- 
erences! Tax exemption docs not make foundations the guardians 
of the nation in the world of ideas and in planning for the future. 

“The Ford Foundation is interested in improving American 
society,” says its president. He says that experiments and research 
underwritten by the Foundation "may not be uniformly popular, 
and probably should not be. Problems in the social sciences are 
not problems of which everyone is aware or on whose easy solu- 
tion everyone agrees. Yet it is part of the foundation function to 
cruise ahead of popular notions, to risk being sniped at, when 
there is a valid gain to be made.” This, it seems to me, is the 
"social-engineering” concept gone wild. Is it not presumptuous of 
foundation administrators to assume that their choice of values is 
superior to that of others? 

"Ye shall be as gods,” said the serpent in Paradise, in offer- 
ing the forbidden fruit, "knowing good and evil.” 

It is my own hope that Dr. Heald will take the time to challenge 
conventional concepts of foundation management, such as I have 
criticized above, and to think through on his own the difficult 
problems involved. As the chief administrator of the largest tax- 
exempt fund in our history, he owes this duty to the people. 



The Annual Report of The Ford Foundation for 1956, signed by 
Mr. Gaither, contains the latest statements of the Foundation’s 
policies- As I shall explain later, the Foundation started with five 
major areas of proposed activity. It has now extended into twenty- 
three major project areas. It continues its plan to set up successive, 
new, self-contained funds under separate boards of management, 
thus delegating its jurisdiction and trust functions to others. The 
report makes much of the relinquishment of control of the Foun- 
dation by tire Ford family. This step might have been desirable 
from several points of view, including the desirability of shifting 
any onus of responsibility from the controlling proprietors of the 
Ford Motor Company. But the shift from family control to a self- 
perpetuating, bureaucratic control may not have been so com- 
mendable. It took the risk of a characteristic breeding of power 
cliques of administrators and the use of resources for political 
ends instead of for charitable donations. 

Having been given control of the Foundation, the trustees, says 
Mr. Gaither, “accepted the challenge of the maturing concept of 
American foundation philanthropy in which emphasis had shifted 
over a period of some forty years from the effects of social prob- 
lems to their causes . They agreed that the resources of the Foun- 
dation should be committed to the solution of problems consti- 
tuting grave threats or obstacles to human progress — such as the 
growing demands on the educational structure and the need for 
improved understanding of and between men and nations.” No 
one could disagree with the desirability of solving the problems 
which Mr. Gaither mentions, But solutions for such problems are 
chiefly political. Foundations which take the initiative, the prop- 
agandists leadership, for social change cease to be philanthropic 
in the legal meaning of the term and enter into the political arena 
where they do not belong. 

The choice of measures to remove unfavorable causes in our 
body social i$ clearly a political-partisan matter. So, in effect, is 


the defining of what constitutes "progress.” Contrary to the belief 
prevalent among some foundations, the currently foundation- 
orthodox ideas about progress and the need for change are not 
universally accepted. There is a noticeable and vehement revolt 
among American thinkers who oppose materialistic concepts of 
progress and pragmatic solutions of problems, basing their dis- 
taste for them on religious or philosophical convictions, 

A good illustration of this revolt is to be found in an address 
delivered by Dr. Ralph Cooper Hutchinson, President of Lafa- 
yette College, on March 21, 1957, under the auspices of the 
Committee of Sponsors of the Greater Philadelphia Council of 
Churches. In this address he inveighed against the assault of sci- 
entific humanism on ideals. He named four teachings of scientific 
humanism which constitute "particular dangers.” One is that "all 
is natural and all truth is subject to discovery and determination 
through science." "As a consequence," he said, "there is no higher 
law, no law written in the heart, no law on the tables of stones, no 
law revealed in the sublimities of nature, no law in the inner con- 
science, no law of God.” He described the second danger: "as the 
belief, following the lead of Bacon, Lenin, Hogben and Bernal,” 
that "there are no values save material and scientific realities.” 
The third danger lie says is that "the objective of all life” is 
deemed to be "social progress," "Here," he continues, "is one of 
the greatest values and greatest vices of scientific humanism, be- 
cause of course social progress is good. The scientific humanist 
has arbitrarily inherited and adopted the concept from the Chris- 
tian ethic. But he makes it the supreme good and only goal. * * * 
Social progress is the only norm, the only ideal, the only objective. 
All other values are dismissed." 

Since "social progress is the only value” to scientific humanism, 
said Dr. Hutchinson in describing its fourth danger, "the end 
justifies the means,” means which may be coercive and ignore 
the rights of the individual. "All the developing power of science 
is to be used to bring about the social progress desired. Hence 
the use of laws to achieve social progress * * We are going 


along with these evils/ 1 continued Dr. Hutchinson. “Inflamed by 
the fad for social progress and reform, we have given up the 
teaching of social idealism and have embarked on what we 
call ‘liberal movements.' We are achieving social progress by leg- 
islation. Instead of persuading men we command them. * * * In 
our moral judgments we have gone over into the enemies’ ter- 
ritory because while not denying God it is becoming very com- 
mon to deny any higher law. * * * We have substituted an 
opportunistic and relative ethic for the absolute. We are becoming 
a compromising relativistic uncertain people recognizing no ab- 
solute right or wrong, no higher law.” 

Have any foundation administrators the moral and ethical right 
to ignore the position of the great number of intelligent Americans 
who think as does Dr. Hutchinson and to direct the trust funds 
which these administrators disburse solely or predominantly to 
those of the opposing point of view? 

There is one hopeful sign in the broadening which the exten- 
sion of The Ford Foundation’s original platform indicates; this 
broadening at least exhibits some flexibility. We can only hope 
that the Foundation will move further and further away from 
the temptation to adjust our body politic to blueprints designed 
by ideological and political factions. This is so important in the 
case of The Ford Foundation because of its immense size. Its er- 
rors can be huge errors, gigantic in impact. It has no peer in size 
or potential. When The Ford Foundation takes sides, who can be 
its match! How can there be a fair test of ideas! 

The managers of the Foundation seem to have an exaggerated 
sense of mission and importance. Without apparently realizing 
how much it applies to his own foundation, Mr. Gaither quotes 
Dr. Raymond B. Fosdick, former president of The Rockefeller 
Foundation, as follows; 

Every social agency, including a foundation, has within it 
not only the seeds of possible decay but a tendency to exalt 
the machinery of organization above the purposes for which 
the organization is created. 


Mr. Gaither’s belief that the Foundation should decide what so- 
cial problems exist, endeavor to determine their causes, and find 
measures to remedy them, expresses an excessus mandaii . 

Mr. Gaither deems the philanthropic process as "at best a 
reasonable system of providing resources and opportunities for 
men capable of creative thinking in what has been described as 
a gigantic bet on the improvability of man ” (emphasis supplied). 
This is again tampering with law and with the body social. There 
are responsible schools of thought which do not believe in the 
"improvability” of man — and this includes the Christian religions. 
What Mr. Gaither propounds as a brand of foundation philosophy 
is the old Pelagian heresy of the fifth century, opposed by Augus- 
tine and later by the Reformation, I do not profess the competence 
to discuss whether man is "improvable” or not, but the massive 
body of opinion against it would indicate that a foundation should 
steer carefully clear of basing a disposition of its vast funds on 
the support of the "improvability” theory. Of course, Mr. Gaither 
may not have meant what he said. He may have meant merely 
"the improvability of man’s conditions” or the "improvability of 
man's education” or something like that. If that be so, a lesson is 
apparent. Foundation managers should not try to be philosophers 
or, at least, not attempt to select brands of philosophy upon which 
to base the support of research. Such decisions are far too dan- 
gerous for foundation managers to handle. 

There are some encouraging features in Mr. Gaither's report, 
He recognizes the responsibility of a foundation for the results of 
its grants, at least to the extent of seeing the need of examination 
and review. He says: "The Foundation retains a continuing re- 
sponsibility to review and evaluate the grantees’ accomplishments 
under the grant. If the Foundation should conclude that it has 
fallen short of the objective, or that a grantee has exhibited poor 
judgment in a series of events over a substantial period of time, 
the Foundation has the inherent right — and indeed the obligation 
— to withhold further support for such a grantee. * * * Thus the 
responsibility for making judgments cannot be evaded by those 
whose responsibility it is to administer the resources of philan- 


thropy." I would hope that Mr. Gaither and others like him would 
also come to the point of recognizing the social duty to take such 
corrective or remedial action as may be possible when a project 
has turned out badly or unfairly. 

Encouraging, too, was the 195G grant to Harvard, even though 
in the small sum of $25,000, for "improving the understanding 
of American capitalism." How rarely, indeed, is such a grant to be 
found among lists of major foundation benefactions. Grants for 
change, yes. Grants to defend that capitalism upon which our na- 
tion has grown strong, that capitalism which gave birth to The 
Ford Foundation, that capitalism which has been under trip- 
hammer attack by a multitude of foundation-supported intellec- 
tuals, have been almost as rare as hens’ teeth. 

One reported grant of $195,000 to Columbia University is more 
difficult to understand, though it may indicate a friendlier attitude 
toward business. It is for a study of the legal, business, and po- 
litical problems of Joint International Business Ventures (such 
as the oil consortium of Iran). Such studies could be well left to 
the managements of the wealthy corporations involved in such 
international deals. 

Eminently discouraging in Mr. Gaither’s report is evidence of 
the continued extensive use of intermediary organizations to dis- 
burse the Foundation's money. Among these, prominently, are 
The Social Science Research Council and the allegedly non- 
partisan Foreign Policy Association now under the partisan presi- 
dency of Vera Micheles Dean. Most astounding are the grants 
to other foundations: for example, to The Russell Sage Founda- 
tion, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and The 
Whitney Foundation. The connections with other foundations are 
so numerous there seems almost to be a mixture of management. 

In the most important field of the behavioral sciences, for in- 
stance, an Advisory Committee assists the Foundation in the se- 
lection of recipient universities. Among the members of this Com- 
mittee, in addition to the directors of the Foundation-financed 
Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, are 
Charles Dollard of the Carnegie Endowment; Hans Speier of The 


Rand Corporation; Donald Young of The Russell Sage Founda- 
tion; and Fillmore Sandford of the American Psychological As- 
sociation, Messrs. Dollard and Young are very familiar names. 
They selected Stuart Chase to do The Proper Study of Mankind, 
the exposition of the current social-science orthodoxy. Their names 
appear, again and again, in foundation operations. Hans Speier, 
before coming to this country and serving as a professor at the 
New School for Social Research and later as director of the social- 
studies section of the supersecret Rand Corporation, had con- 
tributed extensively to radical Socialist publications, especially to 
Rudolf Hilferding’s Die Geselbchaft, in Germany. 

Here is another example. The Report describes a committee of 
five which assists the Foundation in awarding grants-in-aid to 
individual scholars. Of this committee of five, one is the same 
Hans Speier; a second is the same Charles Dollard; a third is 
the same Donald Young. On the very next page of the Report 
appears the name of Professor Paul Lazarsfeld of Columbia, who 
is reported to be engaged in directing the “improvement” of 
“advanced training in social research.” He, too, is a standard 
character, appearing again and again on the rolls of the founda- 
tion-favored. Are our academies so bereft of scholarship that foun- 
dations must use the same few technicians over and over againl 

The sorry story of The Fund for the Republic, that strange 
child of The Ford Foundation, has embarrassed its parent, which 
has sought to shift responsibility by repeatedly affirming the com- 
plete independence of The Fund. But there seem to be left vestiges 
of the spirit which caused The Fund for the Republic to be 
created. On page 42 of the Report is a picture of Joseph Welch, 
who was selected to appear on a television program to expound 
on the “Constitution’s protection of individual civil liberties.” Mr. 
Welch is a lawyer who came into national prominence as the op- 
ponent of the late Senator McCarthy. There is a definite con- 
troversy associated with the term “civil liberties,” a controversy 
in which Mr. Welch took a fervent side. However excellent a law- 
yer he may be, to have selected him to discuss "'civil liberties” 
was an exercise of political partisanship. 


Similarly, on page 36 of the 1956 Ford Foundation Report, 
appears a picture of Professor Zechariah Chafee of Harvard, con- 
ducting a “regular TV course on human rights ” Professor Chafee 
was an eminent and very articulate partisan in the controversy 
over “civil liberties,” “human rights,” and the Fifth Amendment. 
He was also an endorser of many proCommunist causes. In 
his speeches and writings he supported and expounded the same 
position taken by Dr. Hutchins and by the propaganda of The 
Fund for the Republic. Grave issues are involved, including 
the extent to which the doctrine of States’ Rights applies to re- 
strict Federal action; the relative importance and leverage of the 
various individual liberties granted by the Constitution and the 
Amendments; the significance of the Constitutional reservation of 
unenumerated basic rights to the people; the proper powers of 
Congressional committees; the significance and proper use of the 
Fifth Amendment; the propriety and legality of methods used to 
fight communism; and others. On these issues. The Ford Foun- 
dation has enlisted its enormous power on one side. How was the 
other side represented? It was not represented. One can only con- 
clude that it was the intention and purpose of The Ford Founda- 
tion to propagandize for one side of these grave issues. Such a 
taking of sides by a foundation must surely be condemned bit- 
terly. In the case of The Ford Foundation, its Gargantuan size 
makes its violation of propriety (and perhaps of law) all the more 

It would be interesting to make a thorough study of the recip- 
ients of funds for research and the specific projects for which 
Ford Foundation funds were expended. There seems not the 
slightest doubt that it would disclose a relatively limited circle 
of institutions, their academicians, and their graduate students. 
Familiar names appear and reappear. Samuel Stouffer of Harvard 
receives a grant with no strings attached. So does Marie Jahoda 
of New York University (former wife of Professor Paul Lazars- 
feld). With Mr. Speier on the awarding committee, we find 
two of his Rand Corporation staff members, Messrs. Goldhamer 
and Leites, similarly benefited. And so it goes. 


In the field of research and education a foundation docs not 
seem to me to have any right to discriminate and to favor cer* 
tain groups and individuals. Its funds are in use through the grace 
of all the people. To exclude individuals or institutions because of 
their philosophies or religious persuasions seems indefensible. 
One form of discrimination is most difficult to understand. There 
are 30 million Catholics in this country, who maintain scores of 
universities and colleges. Their institutions do not figure among 
the favored of the foundation complex, nor are academicians 
connected with them likely to receive research grants from the 
complex. Perhaps there is a good reason for this discrimination. 
If so, I cannot guess what it might be. True, Catholic institutions 
were included among the institutional donees to which The Ford 
Foundation recently donated a huge aggregate of money, a step 
which deserved the most enthusiastic approval of the general pub- 
lic. But when it comes to special, individual grants, to find a 
Catholic institution as a donee is a rarity indeed. 

The massive Ford grants to institutions, hospitals, colleges, and 
medical schools was a very hopeful sign that there might at least 
be dissension within The Ford Foundation, a conflict between 
the old school of thought and the new which favors a nonpolitical 
and constructive use of its funds. The earlier history of the Foun- 
dation, especially in the era of Messrs. Paul Hoffman and Robert 
M. Hutchins, was, to say the least, controversial. The first ap- 
pointments to the Foundation staff after the 1949 platform was 
adopted were influenced by these two proponents of radicalism in 
public affairs. It may take years before this influence, inherited 
by the new management, can be overcome. It can hardly be over- 
come unless The Ford Foundation decides to avoid joint ventures 
with other foundations, to eliminate trustees, executives, and ad- 
visers now or recently connected with other foundations or dis- 
tributing organizations — all this in the interests of trying to effect 
an unhampered and free contest of ideas. 



After an initial period, during which the foundation had no defi- 
nite policies to govern its grants, a designed program was adopted, 
upon recommendation of a special committee. This committee was 
headed by W. Rowan Gaither, Jr., who later became president of 
the foundation. Mr. Gaither has said that Mr. Ford wanted to 
know what the people of the United States thought the foundation 
should use its money for and, accordingly, went out to see “the 
people/’ But “the people” turned out to be a large number of “ex- 
perts” of various kinds — who thought they ought to be able to say 
what was good for ”the people.” 

The result was a 139-page book, which can be obtained from 
The Ford Foundation. Its major thesis was that the Ford Founda- 
tion should try to help solve the problems of mankind and to do 
so in five areas: 

The Establishment of Peace. 

The Strengthening of Democracy. 

The Strengthening of the Economy. 

Education in a Democratic Society. 

Individual Behavior and Human Relations. 

Raymond Moley pointed out that the committee which had de- 
signed this program was 

composed of a lawyer, W. Rowan Gaither, Jr., now president 
of the foundation; a doctor; a school administrator; and 
five professors. None of these were experienced in founda- 
tion work. It could hardly be a coincidence that the five 
“areas” which they recommended for the foundation cor- 
respond, to a degree, to the academic departments in which 
the professors had been teaching. 

The plan substantially ruled out medical research, public 
health, and natural science on the vague ground that 
“progress toward democratic goals are today social rather 
than physical.” “Democratic goals” are nowhere defined.* 

• Newsweek, January 9, 1956, 


Nevertheless, no one could quarrel with the selection of the five 
fields of activity, vague as they might be, if the plan were to make 
only direct and simple grants to desirable Institutions and individ- 
uals. A grant to Harvard University for so vague a purpose as to 
“help strengthen democracy” or one to Columbia for “studies in 
group psychology” could result in nothing but applause, so long 
as these institutions were to be permitted to determine for them- 
selves how the grants were to be applied. But this was not the 
Ford Foundation plan. The foundation was to spend most of its 
efforts in the detailed designing of how its selected purposes were 
to be achieved. 

Whether it was because an overwhelming number of the con- 
sulted “experts” were “liberals,” or because the initial directive 
management of the foundation was “liberal” and sought “liberal” 
justification for a “liberal” program, at any rate The Ford Founda- 
tion became a conscious “liberal” vehicle, 

(I must here remind the reader of my definition of the term “lib- 
eral” as I use it throughout this book. I do not mean a liberal in 
the traditional sense; the “liberal” to whom I refer is almost the 
diametric opposite of the classic liberal, who is devoted to per- 
sonal freedom. The “liberal” to whom I refer is, at the very least, 
tinged with Marxism, Fabianism, or some other variety of eco- 
nomic collectivism and political centralization. He is a “statist,” an 
advocate of highly centralized government, of “state planning,” of 
paternalism. His direction is away from personal and group man- 
agement of affairs and toward government management.) 

An eminent “liberal,” Mr. Paul Hoffman, was selected as chief 
administrator of The Ford Foundation. His political predilections 
were well known when he was appointed chairman and have be- 
come more evident since. For one of his chief assistants, he se- 
lected Dr. Robert Maynard Hutchins, a “liberal” educator and 
publicist whose ideas are even more extreme than Mr. Hoffman’s. 
The Wall Street Journal said in an editorial; “Money spent in the 
clouds is money frittered away.” And further; “The task of dis- 
bursing millions of dollars for so nebulous a goal as ‘the welfare of 
the people' is a formidable one; the very magnitude and vague- 


ness of the goal make it difficult to grapple with on a practical 
level.”* The difficult task was handed over to Mr. Hoffman, who 
relied heavily on Dr. Hutchins. 

Not only these two were “liberals.” The major staff members, 
the men who were to do the principal thinking for the trustees, 
were almost all “liberals.” One cannot believe that this selection 
was coincidental. These men do not represent a cross-section of 
American belief. Their selection was not even a case of choosing 
a “liberal” majority. There were virtually no conservatives on the 
staff. Dwight Macdonald described the typical Ford Foundation 
staff member as “youngish” and “of a liberal turn politically, habit- 
uated to collective, nonprofit enterprise. . . f 

As might be expected, the academic advisers who were called 
in, from time to time, both to advise on, and in many instances to 
direct, studies or projects, were again overwhelmingly “liberals.” 
There are, in the United States, many academicians of eminence 
who are either wholly objective politically or who have a conserva- 
tive cast of mind. You might be able to find one of these asso- 
ciated with Ford Foundation projects if you look long and care- 
fully; but you will find him, if at all, hidden behind a mass of 
dedicated “liberals.” 

Thus, the largest foundation ever created became a vehicle for 
the type of planning which is dear to the hearts of the “liberal.” 
Its chief executives were “liberals,” its staff was overwhelmingly, if 
not wholly, “liberal,” and its advisers were selected almost en- 
tirely from the “liberal” group. 

It would have been possible, to be sure, even with such heavily 
slanted foundation personnel, to keep on an objective course; 
strength of purpose, application, and alertness on the part of its 
trustees could have done so. In the case of The Ford Foundation, 
however, this did not happen. Mr. Hoffman and Dr. Hutchins were 
eventually released, after Mr. Henry Ford II and some of the 
other trustees could stand their activities no longer. In the mean- 
time, great damage had been done with the vast financial power 

• December 14, 1955. 

•f The Ford Foundation, p. 98. 


which the foundation administered. Nor can we be certain that 
the trustees, having rid themselves of Mr. Hodman and Dr. 
Hutchins, are ready to purge the foundation of its strongly “lib- 
eral” elements or are even acutely conscious of the social neces- 
sity of operating this great public trust with an objective staff. 

I wish to make clear, at this point, that I do not take the position 
that a foundation must be “conservative” or have a predominance 
of "conservative” employees or even of any particular percentage 
of “conservatives.” But I do criticize The Ford Foundation for 
having allowed itself to acquire a distinctly, consciously “liberal” 
character. I maintain that a tax-exempt trust, such as a foundation, 
should be wholly objective politically and economically — better 
still, should avoid, as much as possible, injecting itself into areas 
or projects which are susceptible of being directed by political- 
minded foundation executions toward propagandistic ends, or in 
which political opinion may play a directive part. 

It has not been uncommon in the United States for a founda- 
tion theoretically managed by predominantly conservative trus- 
tees to be taken over in operation by a “liberal” group and di- 
rected largely by it to political ends. In the case of The Ford 
Foundation, this process was made very easy through the plan of 
detailed operation which the trustees permitted themselves to be 
persuaded to adopt. Under this plan, and it was made utterly 
clear, the trustees were not to interfere with the staff. 

The Report of the Study for the Ford Foundation on Policy and 
Program, dated November 19, 1949, reads in part as follows: 

Individual members of the Board of Trustees should not 
seek to decide the technical questions involved in particular 
applications and projects. Nothing would more certainly 
destroy the effectiveness of the foundation. On the con- 
trary, the Trustees will be most surely able to control the 
main lines of policy of the Foundation, and the contribu- 
tion it will make to human welfare, if they give the Presi- 
dent and the officers considerable freedom in developing 
the program, while they avoid influencing (even by in- 


direction) the conduct of projects to which the Foundation 
has granted funds. (Pages 137 and 128.) 

As individual the Trustees should learn as much as they 
can by all means possible, formal and informal, about the 
program of the Foundation in relation to the affairs of the 
world. But the Board of Trustees, as a responsible body, 
should act only according to its regular formal procedures, 
and usually on the agenda, the dockets, and the recommen- 
dations presented by the President. (Page 128.) 

The meetings of the Board should be arranged so that the 
discussion will not be directed mainly at the individual 
grants recommended by the officers, and institutions to re- 
ceive them. Nothing could destroy the effectiveness of the 
Board more certainly than to have the agenda for its meet- 
ings consist exclusively of small appropriation items, each 
of which has to be judged on the basis of scientific con- 
siderations, the academic reputation of research workers, or 
the standing of institutions. If the agenda calls solely for 
such discussions the Board will necessarily fail to discuss 
the main issues of policy and will inevitably interfere in 
matters in which it has no special competence. (Page 130.) 
A foundation may wish from time to time to make small 
grants, either to explore the possibilities of larger programs, 
or to take advantage of an isolated and unusual opportun- 
ity. For such purposes it will be useful for the Trustees to set 
up (and replenish from time to time) a discretionary fund 
out of which the President may make grants on his own 
authority. The Trustees should set a limit on the aggregate 
amount which the President may award in discretionary 
grants during a given period, rather than set a fixed limit 
on the size of a single grant. * * * 

The President of the Ford Foundation, as its principal officer, 
should not only serve as a member of the Board of Trustees, 
but should be given full authority to administer its organ- 

He should have full responsibility for presenting recom- 


mendations on program to the Board, and full authority 
to appoint and remove all other officers and employees of 
the Foundation. * * * (Page 132.) 

The founders of at least two of the larger American foun- 
dations intended their trustees to devote a major amount 
of their time to the active conduct of foundation affairs. 
Usually this arrangement has not proved practicable. * * * 

(Page 133 ) 

* * * for the program of a foundation may be determined 
more certainly by the selection of its top officers than by 
any statement of policy or any set of directions. * # * 

The Reece Committee report commented on this platform as 

We cannot escape the conclusion that the trustees of the 
Ford Foundation abdicated their trust responsibility in 
assenting to this plan of operation, under which everything 
except possibly the establishment of glittering generalities 
could be left to employees.* 

In his book The Ford Foundation, Dwight Macdonald points 
out how vexatious a job it is to run a large foundation.*!' Massive, 
boring detail is required of those who would expend vast sums on 
directed research. 

Like an army, the United Nations, and other large, bureau- 
cratic organizations, a foundation excretes an extraordinary 
quantity of words, most of them of stupefying dullness. J 

Is it the trustees who plough through this material? No, replies 
Mr. Macdonald. In the case of the Ford Foundation: 


j-Mr. Macdonald, incidentally, is no friend of the Reece Committee. His book 
completely ignores the mass of critical material produced by it and writes off 
its work with some highly uncomplimentary characterizations. However, he 
implicitly supports many of the most important criticisms of foundation op* 
eralion made by the Reece Committee and actually adds valuable illustrative 
material to the data critical of foundations and of The Ford Foundation io 

J The Ford Foundation, p. 109. 


The Foundation's fourteen trustees, prominent and busy 
men of affairs, are shielded by the staff from the main spate 
of bureaucratic rhetoric.* 

That is, while the trustees are, no doubt, confronted periodi- 
cally with a certain number of reports presented by their profes- 
sional employees — and these reports, in themselves, are difficult 
enough fully to understand — they do not even see the mass of ma- 
terial which the staff uses in deciding upon programs, plans, proj- 
ects, and grantees. The trustees know only in a general way what 
is going on. They act only upon what has been filtered up to them 
from the echelons below. They exercise little more than superficial 
direction of the foundation’s affairs, in relation to directed or de- 
signed projects. 

After all, what can be expected of a trustee unfamiliar with the 
gobbledygook which is the lingua franca of the professional foun- 
dation administrator? The tendency of many foundation execu- 
tives to avoid writing simply, can be attributed, I am sure, to a 
certain aping of the social scientists with whom they come into con- 
tact and whose obscure writings they so frequently see. Many of 
these "scientists" have what Professor Sorokin in his recent book, 
Fads and Foibles in Modem Sociology and Related Sciences , calls 
“speech disorders." One of these speech disorders, he says, is 
“a ponderously obscure description of platitudes." In an effort to 
make their "sciences” sound more "scientific," they take over terms 
which have precise meaning in a natural science and implant 
them in their own work. Professor Sorokin mentions some of these 
terms (and others constructed out of whole cloth): syntality , 
synergy , ergic, metanergic , valence , cathexis, inductibility , topo- 
logical medium, hodological space, edience, abience, enthropy, 
org, animorg. He illustrates the resulting nonsense by describing 
certain historical incidents as a social scientist with this speech 
disorder might do it: 

* * * in March 1917 the location of Russia locomoted on 
a two-dimensional plane (surface) from monarchy to re- 

• Ibid., p. no. 


public, with positive cathexis and promotive inductibility 
of the Provisional government vectorized toward the goal 
of a democratic regime. In October 1917 this locomotion 
was followed by a new locomotion in hodological space, 
fluid and permeable, along the dimensions of Communism, 
marked by negative cathexis, and contrient inductibility 
toward a democratic structure of “groupness,” “we-ness,” 
“valence/’ and "syntality.” # 

Mr. Macdonald gives some actual examples of this foundation 
language, which no trustee could be expected to understand with- 
out an interpreter at his elbow. Take this one relating to a pro- 
posed study of the experience of foreign students in the United 

The general purpose is to develop techniques for evaluating 
the impact of exchange-of-persons experiences on foreign 
students in order to produce, through intensive, controlled 
investigation, a body of information on the effect of ex- 
change that can serve as a basis for a wider analysis of 
the many variable factors in particular exchanges. 

Mr. Macdonald explains this as meaning that The Social Sci- 
ence Research Council (in this instance) is to spend $225,000 
(provided by the Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller foundations) 
on a study which will make it possible to do more studies. 

Mr. Macdonald quotes further from an SSRC report on this 
Ford-supported proposed study: 

The first phase had consisted of intensive exploratory stud- 
ies of the adjustment of foreign students to life on Amer- 
ican campuses * * *. As was hoped these studies focussed the 
attention of the committee on a number of problems of 
salient theoretical and practical interests, and resulted in 
the formulation of many hypotheses about the determi- 
nants of various outcomes of the students’ sojourn. As is 
generally the case with intensive studies, however, the data 

# See pp. 21*30. 


served to document varieties of cross-cultural experience 
rather than to support firm conclusions about causes and 
effects. The committee early decided, therefore, that the 
next phase of its work would be devoted to well-focussed, 
systematic studies designed to test hypotheses and attack 
major problems discerned in the initial phase of its re- 

Mr. Macdonald translates these sonorous phrases to mean: they 
were disappointed in the work which had been done; they did not 
find out anything; they were starting all over again. Mr. Mac- 
donald comments: "The American academic world, thanks partly 
to the foundations, is becoming a place where committees ac- 
cumulate and thought decays." 

Into this complex and difficult world the trustees of The Ford 
Foundation have thrust themselves. Able as they are, they could 
quite possibly acquire enough information and data to steer them- 
selves through it with sufficient understanding. But to accomplish 
this would be a full-time job and a very arduous one. 

It has been reported that the Ford Foundation trustees meet for 
two days, four times a year; that they do some homework; that 
they have informal talks with Mr. Gaither occasionally; and that 
they act on committees from time to time. This would be enough if 
the foundation merely made grants of the type which recently 
won such great acclaim — direct grants to operating institutions for 
simple and valuable uses. However, because The Ford Founda- 
tion operates in obscure and difficult areas of activity and devotes 
itself largely, if not principally, to designing and directing proj- 
ects, the trustees could not possibly do their work adequately by 
devoting, as they do, only one twelfth of every year to the job. 

Mr. Henry Ford II is the most important member of the Ford 
Foundation board. How much time does he spend on its work? He 
has been quoted as saying: "I rarely take a position on any pro- 
gram until the staff has acted on it." His main job is that of chief 
executive of the Ford Motor Company, a rather large enterprise to 

• The ford Foundation , pp. 105-10$, 


conduct. He has rightly said: "If I got mixed up in all that M 
(meaning the detailed work of The Ford Foundation) "I’d never 
get anything done around here" (meaning the Ford Motor Com* 

Mr. Ford and the other trustees of The Ford Foundation "run” 
it in the sense that they are the legal repositories of the manage- 
ment power. They “run” it also in the sense that they exercise the 
right to approve or reject major proposals. They do not "run” it, 
however, in the* practical sense; they delegate their power to oth- 
ers. Even if they were to apply their full time to the work, it 
would be difficult for them to acquire a sufficient understanding of 
the vast areas in which the foundation operates to enable them to 
check the work of their employees. Spending the equivalent of one 
month per year in the foundation’s service, they are dependent on 
what these employees plan, approve, and execute, 

Foundation apologists have tried to draw an analogy with an 
industrial corporation, holding that the foundation trustee is in 
the same position as the director of a commercial enterprise. The 
analogy is not apt. The foundation trustee cannot discharge his 
duty through the limited type of service which his directorship in 
a commercial company involves, The ultimate, basic purpose of 
the trust enterprise which he is to help direct is the selection of 
grants and grantees. He is, in the true sense, a trustee. His funda- 
mental, essential trust function is to select grants and grantees 
with understanding, intelligence, and objectivity. 

Trustee alertness is sorely necessary, because political slants are 
so easily introduced into social material. The Reece Committee re- 
port extracted an excellent example out of the 1952 report of The 
Ford Foundation. The trustees who passed that report must have 
done so in ignorance, for it contained this false statement: 

The high cost of a college and of a higher education in 
general makes real equality of opportunity impossible. More 

* Mr. Ford made these statements while chairman of the Ford Foundation 
board of trustees. Since then, he has retired as chairman, while remaining a 
trustee. It is to be presumed that he will be able to give no more time to his 
position as a trustee than he was able to give t 9 (hat pf chairman. 


and more the financial burden is being thrust upon the 
student in the form of higher tuition fees. In consequence, 
higher education threatens to become increasingly the pre- 
rogative of the well-to-do* 

The fact is exactly the opposite. “More and more/' the less well- 
to-do are getting college educations. Here are the statistics on col- 
lege attendance: 


19 10 



And the increase since 1950 has been so great that the colleges are 
swamped; their facilities are far below the demand. As the Reece 
Committee report asked: 

Why did representatives of The Ford Foundation, who were 
well aware of the true facts, make such false statements: 
Did they intend political propaganda? Did they wish to manu- 
facture a class argument, an attack on the well-to-do who 
alone are able (which is false) to attend colleges! j* 

The predominance of “liberal" direction of The Ford Founda- 
tion’s affairs — the overwhelming predominance of the leftward- 
tending point of view among its professional staff — makes it all the 
more dangerous for the trustees to delegate their basic duties. 
That this leftish predominance has been translated into founda- 
tion action appeared clearly from the limited studies which the 
Reece Committee was able to undertake and from further data 
which have appeared since its work closed. A complete Congres- 
sional study of the operations of The Ford Foundation, to audit 

• Reece Committee Report, p. 123. Emphasis supplied. 


Students enrolled (by thousands) 




1- 494 

2- 659 


the discharge of the trustees of their duties to the people of the 
United States, should be made. 

Let us see some of the record to date. 


The Reece Committee’s report included a diagram of the structure 
of The Ford Foundation and its subsidiaries. This gigantic opera- 
tion has grown so complex that it is no wonder the central trustees 
cannot possibly follow all its operations. The diagram shows, as 
major divisions: 

Adult Education 
Advancement of Education 
East European Fund 
Intercultural Publications 
Resources for the Future 
Fund for the Republic 
Center for Advanced Study 
TV Workshop 
Foundation External Grant 
Behavioral Sciences Division 

Research & Training Abroad „ 

Institutional Exchange Program 
Grants in Aid 

The 1956 Report (p. 17) diagrams a still longer list of divi- 
sional activities: 

International affairs 
International training and research 
Overseas development 
International legal studies 
Public affairs 
Fund for the Republic 
Economic affairs 
Resources for the Future 
Business administration 


Behavioral sciences 
Center for Advanced Studies 
Mental health research 
Fund for Adult Education 
Medical education 
Hospital aid 

Council on Library Resources 
National Merit Scholarships 
Faculty salaries 

Educational television 

Fund for Advancement of Education 

TV-Radio Workshop 

And more may be breeding. 

Particularly important is the Behavioral Sciences Fund, en- 
gaged in a field of operations in which, if it fails to act with the 
utmost objectivity, it can cause irremediable damage. The Reece 
Committee report commented upon it as follows: 

This Behavioral Sciences Fund has vast resources at its 
command. Its list of objectives indicates an underlying 
assumption that human behavior can be understood as an 
object of the natural sciences would be, within the frame- 
work of limited numbers of cause-effect relationships. 
This doctrine is not by any means universally accepted, 
and there is the danger that the huge sum available to the 
Fund to promote its underlying thesis can make this the 
ruling doctrine in the social sciences. A full examination 
of the current and intended operation of this great fund 
is indicated, as well as a study of why certain institutions 
have been so greatly favored by it,* 

• Reece Committee Report , p. 82. The behavioral-"science” theories which 
this Ford unit promotes with tens of millions of dollars largely concern 
"scientism” or "fraudulent science." The basic fallacy consists of an over- 
emphasis on fact finding, with an accompanying insufficient regard for the 
intangible factors which affect human behavior or must be taken into account 


The reference in the quotation above to "greatly favored" in- 
stitutions is based partly upon the following statistical analysis: 

A glance at the list of recent recipients of favor from, and 
consultants to, the Behavioral Sciences Division of The Ford 
Foundation indicates a definite concentration among favored 
institutions or their faculties. Of the committees which 
formulated policies for this Fund, including a total of 88 
persons with university connections, 10 seem to have been 
from Harvard; 8 from Chicago; 7 from Yale; 5 from Califor- 
nia; 5 from Stanford; and 5 from Columbia. A total of 
59 of these men (out of 88) represented 12 institutions. 
There is additional significance in the fact that some of 
these recipients and consultants were on a multiplicity of 
committees. For example, Professor Lazarsfeld of Columbia, 
was on six; Professors Carroll of North Carolina, Merton of 
Columbia, and Tyler of Chicago, on five; Professors Lass- 
well of Yale, Simon of Carnegie Tech., and Stouffer of 
Harvard, on four, etc. Counting the number of times each 
person with a university connection appears on committees 
of the Fund, wc reach this representation: 

University of Chicago . 




North Carolina . . . 

California . 










7, etc. 

Note also that associates of The Rand Corporation are 
represented 11 times. This interlock with The Rand Cor- 
poration is highly interesting. 

in determining what human beings should do, should be permitted to do, 
or should be restrained from doing. I shall give an example of this, presently, 
in discussing the notorious Behavioral Sciences Division-financed Jury-tap- 
ping incident. 


We must add the intriguing fact that the Behavioral Sci- 
ences Fund provided a grant-in-aid program under which 
each of fifty persons was to receive $5,000 to be spent at 
their own discretion for the purpose of enriching their own 
work. The associates and consultants distributed this largess, 
and included a goodly number of themselves in their lists. 

Note also that The Social Science Research Council * took 
part in the policy making of the Fund and that considerable 
funds were made available to it and through it. 

In the Summer of 1950, $300,000 was given to each of seven 
universities and to The Social Science Research Council 
(beyond other large grants to the SSRC). Why this money 
was concentrated on this limited group of institutions, we 
do not know.f 

The explanation, namely, that what seems to be favoritism is 
really the selection of the best men in the respective fields of re- 
search, is not persuasive. An analysis would show that the men 
chosen, directly or through the use of selected universities, are 
overwhelmingly, if not wholly, of one school — that which the Be- 
havioral Sciences Division of The Ford Foundation seeks to pro- 
mote. There is no objectivity in these selections. Men and institu- 
tions are carefully chosen to follow the theories of social-science 
research to which those who operate the Division adhere. 


Were the trustees of The Ford Foundation to confine themselves 
to direct, undesigned grants to operating institutions, they would 
be held exonerated if anything unfortunate were done with a 
grant. Where, however, the foundation has planned or designed 
the grant, or played any part in determining or approving its de- 
tailed subject matter, its objectives, or its method of operation, it is 

• See Chapter 3 to orient The Social Science Research Council, 
f Reece Committee Report , p. 81. 


difficult for the trustees to escape responsibility for what happens. 
The incident of jury eavesdropping is illustrative. 

It is also an example, an excellent one, of the fraudulent nature 
of much of the "science” to which the Behavioral Sciences Divi- 
sion had been addicted. 

The Eastland Committee of the Senate recently investigated the 
installation of microphones in jury rooms to record the conversa- 
tions of juries in session. These installations were made under a 
Ford Foundation grant through its Behavioral Sciences Division 
to the University of Chicago Law School. The project was super- 
vised by Dean Edward H. Levi of the Chicago University Law 
School and was under the direction of Professor Harry Kalven, Jr. 

These were scarcely objective selections to control an investiga- 
tion with political overtones or connotations. Dean Levi signed a 
letter to the Chicago Daily News in 1948 denouncing the House 
Committee on Un-American Activities as a "spy-hunting” group. 
Professor Kalvcn's similar political disposition is indicated by his 
letter to President Truman in 1952 asking clemency for the con- 
victed Rosenberg spies and by his work at "Rosenberg rallies.” 
Both these men belong to the group which J. Edgar Hoover has 
characterized as "fictitious liberals.” They are entitled to their opin- 
ions. But their opinions would seem to show such a lack of objec- 
tivity that one would hardly choose them to study a political in- 
stitution such as the jury system. 

Dean Levi testified that The Ford Foundation originally did 
not know that juries were to be "tapped” in the investigation 
which he supervised. On the other hand, it appeared that the orig- 
inal Ford grant had been for $400,000, but, so the dean testified, 
it had been increased by an additional $1,000,000 after The Ford 
Foundation had been informed of the eavesdropping procedure. 

This was "behavioral science” 

This was paid for by The Ford Foundation with money dedi- 
cated to the public. 

Millions of Americans were shocked at the disclosure of this 
project. As the Boston Post put it: "The jury system is far from per- 


feet, but it is not going to be improved by secret eavesdropping in 
jury rooms. That kind of police-state research can only tear down 
the confidence of the people in the jury system, and, by the same 
method, destroy the courts." 

The project was designed to be "scientific" and to be under* 
taken under the auspices of "£lite" personnel who presume to 
know far better than the citizen what is good for him. The people 
saw the incident clearly, however, as a shocking violation of the 
right of privacy without which the jury system would be useless as 
one of the fundamental, Constitution-guaranteed protections of 
the citizen.* 

In a commercial corporation, a fiasco such as the jury-tapping 
incident would mean that executive heads would fall. In The 
Ford Foundation this does not seem to be the case. Bernard 
Berelson, an old friend of Dr. Hutchins, was the operating head 
of the Behavioral Sciences Division and seems to have been the 
contact man for the project which eavesdropped on juries. As I 
write, Mr. Berelson is still head of this great Behavioral Sciences 

College presidents and academicians who so urgently (but 
mostly in private) plead for direct and unrestricted grants to 
academic institutions freely admit that these institutions them- 
selves can err. It is quite possible that the Chicago Law School, 
under Dean Levi’s deanship, would have itself selected the Ameri- 
can jury as a subject of inquiry and conducted it with as little re- 
gard to propriety. But there is normally far greater safety to the 
public in transferring research decisions to recognized educa- 
tional institutions than in bestowing them on professional founda- 
tion managers. 

There is the point, moreover, that such a grant could have been 
made to some other law school presided over by a dean more 
likely to direct a proper inquiry. 

Among the countless condemnatory comments in the press 

♦ I do not happen to know what other procedures of investigation the jury 
project has adopted. But researchers who would stoop to the ouLrageous and 
fruitless procedure of ,, bugging , ‘ juries in session may well have used other 
and worse methods in their "scientific" research. 


which greeted the disclosure of the study of the ‘'behaviorism” of 
juries by “bugging” their deliberations, was an editorial in The 
Wall Street Journal of October 17, 1955, reading in part as fol- 

When the experimenters use the wrong methods to ascertain 
truth, are the researcher $ alone responsible? Or are the 
foundations, which are tax-free, accountable to the public 
for the transgressions? 

* * # 

Certainly the general public will hold foundations respon- 
sible for grants used in irresponsible ways. And unless the 
foundations themselves assume a responsibility for seeing 
that their grants are not misused, the unfortunate result 
doubtless will be that the government will assume it for 

For a foundation can no more disclaim responsibility where 
legal research funds are used for tampering with the jury 
system than it could if some irresponsible people used its 
funds for research into structural engineering by blowing 
up some public bridges. 


It took courage for academicians to testify before the Recce Com- 
mittee. To offer any criticism of the major foundations and those 
organizations with which they interlock is equivalent to writing 
yourself off their books. They know how to deal with those who 
dare to disagree. As Professor Charles W. Briggs, professor emer- 
itus of Columbia University, testified, they have terrified many 
who would be critical. He said: 

It is tragic in a high degree that men who have won con- 
fidence and position in the education world should be 
intimidated from expressing criticism of a foundation whose 
administrators and policies they do not respect.* 

♦ Reece Committee Report , p. 38. 


He added these remarks concerning the power of the founda- 
tions to punish criticism or to suppress it by the inducements of 
their patronage: 

It has been stated that, unlike colleges and universities, 
foundations have no alumni to defend them. But they do 
have influential people as members of their boards, and 
these members have powerful friends, some of whom are 
more inclined to be partisanly defensive than objectively 
critical. Moreover, there are also thousands who, hopeful 
of becoming beneficiaries of future grants, either conceal 
their criticisms or else give expression to a defense that may 
not be wholly sincere.* 

Dr. Briggs was one of the courageous few who were willing to 
criticize when he thought criticism was due. His standing as one 
of our leading educators was recognized by the Ford Foundation- 
created Fund for the Advancement of Education, which had ap- 
pointed him to its advisory committee. 

It was with reference to The Fund for the Advancement of 
Education, that heavily endowed child of The Ford Foundation, 
that Professor Briggs principally testified. He had resigned from 
its advisory committee in disgust. Reading from his own carefully 
prepared statement, he said that all the officers of The (Ford) 
Fund for the Advancement of Education had been appointed di- 
rectly or indirectly by one influential executive of the parent 
(Ford) foundation and (it is worth repeating) that these officers 
presented to the board of their organization and to the public “a 
program so general as to get approval and yet so indefinite as to 
permit activities which in the judgment of competent critics are 
either wasteful or harmful to the education program which has 
been approved by the public/' 

The Fund program was described in the statement of The Ford 
Foundation, filed with the committee, as follows: 

The Fund for the Advancement of Education concentrates 
upon five major educational objectives. These are — 

# Loc. cit. 


Clarifying the function of the various parts of the ed- 
ucational system so that they can "work together more ef- 

Improving the preparation of teachers at all levels of 
the education system; 

Improving curricula; 

Developing increased financial support for educational 
institutions; and 

Equalizing educational opportunity.* 

The same statement records that, up to the end of 1953, the 
Fund had received from The Ford Foundation a total of $30,- 
850,580, of which it had disbursed $22,242,568. By the end of 
1954, it had received $57,000,000 from its parent. Who allocated 
these vast funds? Professor Briggs tells us; 

Not a single member of the staff, from the president down 
to the lowliest employee, has had any experience, certainly 
none in recent years, that would give understanding of the 
problems that are met daily by the teachers and admin- 
istrators of our schools, 

Nor did they listen to competent advice: 

As a former member of a so-called Advisory Committee I 
testify that at no time did the administration of the fund 
seek from it any advice on principles of operation nor did 
it hospitably receive or act in accordance with such advice 
as was volunteered.f 

Professor Briggs attacked the theory that foundation leaders 
were entitled to force upon the public things which it does not 
want. I-Ie said; 

The principle that the public should decide what it wants 
in order to promote its own welfare and happiness is un- 
questionably sound. An assumption that the public does not 

• Reece Committee Hearings p. 1028. 
t Reece Committee Report , p. 23. 


know what is for its own good is simply contrary to the 
fundamental principles of democracy.* 

Among his charges, supported in detail in his carefully pre- 
pared statement, f Professor Briggs said that The (Ford) Fund for 
the Advancement of Education '‘is improperly manned” with an 
inexperienced staff “out of sympathy with the democratic ideal of 
giving an appropriate education to all the children of all the peo- 
ple”; that it has propagandized against programs approved by the 
public; that it has ignored professional teachers* organizations; 
that it has been extremely wasteful of public trust funds; that it has 
“given no evidence of its realization of its obligations as a public 
trust to promote the general good of the entire nation; and that it 
either “has no balanced program of correlated constructive poli- 
cies, or else it has failed to make them public/' 

Having severely criticized the propaganda of The Ford Foun- 
dation against current theories of education, he accused the Fund's 
officers of an “arrogation” of “an assumption of omniscience” and 

All this being understood, we can assert without fear of 
successful contradiction that any attempt by outside agen- 
cies, however heavily they may be financed and however 
supported by eminent individuals, to influence, school ad- 
ministrators and teachers to seek other objectives than those 
which have public approval or to use methods and materials 
not directed by responsible management is an impudence 
not to be tolerated. Though cloaked with declared benevo- 
lence, it cannot hide the arrogance underneath. J 

There is no doubt that Professor Briggs was referring to Dr. 
Robert M. Hutchins when he said that one man was responsible 
for the staffing of The Fund for the Advancement of Education. 
The Fund was his creature and his design. It is well known that 
Dr. Hutchins’s ideas on education and the responsibility of teach- 

* Ibid.j p. si. 

I Reece Committee Hearings , p. 94 et seq , 
j Reece Committee Report , p. 167. 


ers runs severely counter to accepted theory; and I believe it safe 
to say that The Fund for the Advancement of Education has used 
its millions in great measure to propagate Dr. Hutchins’s ideas. 

I have no doubt that some of Dr. Hutchins’s theories are merito- 
rious and even, in some respects, far superior to prevailing theories 
of education. Indeed, he has lined himself up with those who 
have revolted against the scientific humanist theory of progress. In 
his Freedom , Education and The Fund* he says (p. 97); 

According to the dogmas of scientism, skepticism, and sec- 
ularism there is no * * * truth. If there is truth at all, it 
is truth discoverable in the laboratory, by what is called 
the scientific method, 

Further (p. 136): 

Underneath the writings of almost all writers on education 
lies the doctrine of social reform. They cannot look at the 
society around them and like it. How is the society to be 
changed? There are only two ways: revolution and educa- 

And (p. 128): 

But I believe it is dangerous as well as futile to regard 
the educational system as a means of getting a program of 
social reform adopted. If one admits the possibility of ob- 
taining through the schools social reforms that one likes, 
one must also admit the possibility of obtaining social re- 
forms that one dislikes. What happens will depend on the 
popularity of various reformers, the plausibility of their 
causes, and the pressure they are able to exert on the ed- 
ucational system, 

It is “unwise and dangerous,” he continues, to look at the educa- 
tional system “as an engine of social reform,” 

However commendable some of Dr. Hutchins's ideas on edu- 
cation may be, the fact remains that a system which enables any 

# A Meridian paperback book, 1956. 


one employee to use the terrific power of a vast public trust fund 
to propagandize his own educational ideas is not to be tolerated, 
as Professor Briggs rightly maintained. 

Other data assembled by the Reece Committee bear out Profes- 
sor Briggs’s disgust with The Fund for the Advancement of Edu- 
cation. An illustration is the $565,000, three-year grant by the 
Fund to The Institute of Philosophical Research in San Francisco 
which, according to the Ford 1952 annual report, is to concentrate 
on a “clarification of educational philosophy," An objective study 
of “educational philosophy" could be highly desirable. The com- 
mittee wondered, however, whether The Ford Foundation had se- 
lected Dr. Mortimer Adler to head this study in order to make 
sure that it would be objective. 

Dr. Adler, another old friend of Dr. Hutchins, has made his 
sympathy with collectivism entirely clear. In an article in 1949 in 
Common Cause, he said that we are in “a quiet but none the less 
effective revolution.” He did not disapprove of this revolution. Its 
direction was leftist, and he liked it. 

He wrote: 

By choice the American people are never going to fall back 
to the right again. * * * That deserves to be called a 
revolution accomplished. Either the Democratic Party will 
move further to the left or a new political party will form 
to the left of the Democrats.* 

Dr. Adler has also expressed himself forcefully to the effect that 
world peace “requires the total relinquishment and abolishment of 
the external sovereignty of the United States. . . ."f 

This is the man chosen by The Ford Foundation to direct “a 
dialectical examination of western thought" and “to clarify educa- 
tional philosophy." Starting in 1952 with his budget of $565,000, 
Dr. Adler has produced nothing very substantial to date except a 
report called Research on Freedom: Report of Dialectical Discov- 
eries and Constructions . 

* Ibid., p. 162. 

•[Ibid., p. 227. 


There are indications that the Ford trustees are not wholly satis* 
fied with the results of their gigantic expenditures through their 
Fund for the Advancement of Education. Dwight Macdonald, in 
discussing the jargon used by foundation executivies, said this: 

Thus, President Gaither, a master of foundationese, writes 
in his 1954 Annual Report, apropos of the trustees’ decision 
to cut the annual rate of support for the Fund for the 
Advancement of Education from $10,000,000 to $3,000,000, 
“In adopting this course, the Trustees acknowledged the 
encouraging results of the Fund’s efforts in a relatively 
short period and reaffirmed their belief that the Fund’s 
assistance to education showed exceptional promise for 
the future. [Translation: The trustees are cooling off toward 
the Fund and have decided to spend most of their educa- 
tional money themselves in the future.]”* 


When The Ford Foundation decides to enter some field of opera- 
tion, it does not do so in modest fashion. Through 1956, its grants 
to its own Fund for Adult Education totaled $47,400,000. This 
illustrates clearly enough the dangers inherent in foundation size. 
Adult education is a worthy area of foundation activity when such 
education is objectively directed. But $47,400,000 is a tidy sum to 
hand over to those who may be inclined to use it for social and 
political propaganda. 

One of the projects richly supported by the Fund for Adult 
Education was the Great Books Discussion Groups, operated by 
The American Library Association through its American Heritage 
Project. “Adult education” was to be based on group discussions 
of the “Great Books” and educational films. Adults were to be 
brought together in public libraries to discuss the great American 
documents and “American political freedoms.” 

The use of the term “American political freedoms” might have 
given the Ford trustees pause. The word “freedoms” used in this 

• The Ford Foundation , p. 102. 


connection has a special semantic significance. Radicals, domestic 
and foreign, have been trying for years to reconstruct our basic 
charter of liberties, our “inalienable rights” by superimposing or 
substituting for some of them new concepts of “freedom from” 
various social ills. Much of the thinking behind these new “free- 
doms” has come out of the United Nations, where Marxists have 
had their say in limiting the rights to which we adhere and in add- 
ing concepts which are foreign to us. 

The Reece Committee, unable to do complete research on the 
work of these Discussion Groups, did find some highly interesting 
items among the prescribed materials employed. The Committee 
found that the Great Books project was closely allied, through its 
directorate, to The Encyclopedia Britannica, which issued 16mm. 
documentary films sometimes used by the discussion groups. The 
materials which the Committee collected “leaned heavily to civil 
liberties, political and social action, and international world poli- 
tics.” Many of the authors whose works were siudied were extreme 
leftists. But it was selection of films used by the discussion groups 
which most induced the Committee to doubt “the objectivity and 
good faith of those responsible for the selection of individuals and 
discussion materials.” The following is the Committee's descrip- 
tion of some of the films; 

Due Process of Law Denied 

This film, somewhat uniquely paired with “The Adven- 
tures of Huckleberry Finn” deals with excerpts from “The 
Ox Bow Incident,” a brutal story of mob “justice.” De- 
scribed in the material furnished to the discussion groups 
as “forceful re-enacting of a lynching,” a more accurate 
statement is that it is inflammatory and designed to convey 
the impression that throughout the United States there is 
widespread disregard for law and order. 

The Cuminington Story 

By Waldo Salt, who on April 15, 1951, refused to answer, 
claiming the privilege of the Fifth Amendment when ques- 


tioned by the House Un-American Activities Committee re- 
garding his Communist affiliations. 

The House I Live In 

By Albert Maltz referred to earlier, who refused to an- 
swer questions regarding his Communist Party record, and 
was cited for contempt. 

Of Human Rights 

Prepared by the United Nations Film Department, it is 
used with the United Nations Declaration on Human 
Rights, and is described as follows: 

"An incident involving economic and racial prejudice 
among children is used to dramatize the importance of 
bringing to the attention of the peoples of the world their 
rights as human beings as set forth in the Universal Declara- 
tion of Human Rights proclaimed by the UNP General As- 
sembly in December 1948.” [Emphasis supplied.] 

The United States government by rejecting this Universal 
Declaration has gone on record as stating this country does 
not consider that document — prepared in collaboration with 
the Communists — as a statement of our "rights as human 
beings." The rights of citizens of the United States are set 
forth in the Declaration of Independence, in the Constitu- 
tion and its Amendments. 

Brotherhood of Man 

Also suggested for use on the program "Human Rights," 
this film produced by United Productions of America for 
the United Automobile Workers of the CIO is distributed 
by Brandon Films. The Washington representative of Bran- 
don Films testified before the Jenner Committee in May 
1951 that Brandon Films advertised in the Daily Worker 
but took refuge behind the Fifth Amendment against self- 
incrimination when questioned as to his own Communist 
Party membership, 


The film itself is based on the pamphlet “Races of Man- 
kind” written by Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish, whose 
records are included in the Appendix. Following complaints 
as to its nature and accuracy the pamphlet was withdrawn 
from the Armed Forces Education Program — but as recently 
as September of this year the film was in use at the Film 
Center at Fort Monmouth . To this Committee the use of 
such a film cannot be justified, and it condemns the sub- 
terfuge by which a document branded as inaccurate is with- 
drawn as it were by one hand and surreptitiously reinstated 
with the other* 

With These Hands 

Produced by the International Ladies Garment Workers* 
Union, this film is a highly colored portrayal of violence on 
the picket lines, featuring the horrors of the Triangle Fire 
in New York City almost fifty years ago, giving a completely 
unrealistic picture of present day working conditions* 

The Challenge 

This is another film on the theme that the guarantee 
of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is denied to 
Negroes and other minority group members in the United 
States; it is unrealistic, distorted and deceptive. 

Such presentations as these cannot be called educational 
in the opinion of this Committee; they deliberately seek to 
stress “what’s wrong” in present and past group relations 
rather than provide facts for objective discussion of such re- 
lations, and ignore the fact that here in the United States 
can be found the outstanding example of liberty in action 
in the world today. 

The Fund For Adult Education along with the 20th Cen- 
tury Fund, and the Carnegie Endowment for International 
Peace, is closely associated with the Film Council of Amer- 
ica. Evans Clark is listed as a member and William F. Kruse 


(at one time connected with Bell and Howell) is in a 
policy-making position on the Filin Council. Mr. Kruses 
background is particularly interesting to this Committee 
since he carries great weight with the Council — and the 
Council’s films find their way into the discussion groups 
sponsored by the American Library Association with Ford 

Mr Kruse is reliably reported to have been a Communist 
as recently as 1943, and there are witnesses who state he 
still was after that date. As late as 1943 he was listed as 
sponsoring the Chicago Council of American-Soviet Friend- 

Another individual indirectly associated with the Film 
Council is John Grierson, who produced "Round Trip," 
spearhead for a world trade campaign in this country star- 
ring Paul Hoffman. Grierson resigned as head of the Na- 
tional Film Board of Canada at the time of the Canadian 
atomic spy ring revelations. Denied a visa to this country 
he came in th rough Unesco and thereafter headed the film 
section of that organization. Unesco and UNO films are 
likewise used in the [Great] Books discussion groups. 

The 16mm. film is being increasingly recommended for 
use in all levels of education — including so-called adult ed- 
ucation. This Committee would strongly urge that the whole 
matter of the type of films as well as the subject matter 
and the individuals and organizations who produce these 
films, be carefully studied. There is no greater media today 
through which to propagandize and it is no exaggeration 
to say that such things as ostensibly "educational" films 
can well prove to be the Trojan horse of those ideologies 
which seek to scuttle American principles and ideals.* 

The Fund for Adult Education seems also to have been a Hoff- 
man-Hutchins product. The President of the Fund is C. Scott 
Fletcher, who has been closely associated with both. He was 

• Reece Committee Report , pp. 164-166, 


president of the Encyclopedia Britannica Films, which was once 
owned by the University of Chicago when Dr. Hutchins was 
president of that institution. In some way not disclosed to the pub- 
lic, Britannica passed into private hands, among them those of 
Mr. Benton, with whom Dr. Hutchins has also been closely asso- 
ciated. And Mr. Fletcher had been sales manager of the Stude- 
baker Corporation while Mr. Hoffman was its President. 


The Fund for Adult Education does not confine itself to the edu- 
cation of the general adult public. It also devotes huge sums of 
money to the "education” of labor as a special class in our society. 

This "education” is of a special kind. Its nature may be gath- 
ered from the heavy support given by The Fund for Adult Educa- 
tion to The American Labor Education Service, which is de- 
voted to educating labor in how to "Advance Labor’s Economic 
and Political Objectives.”* 

The American Labor Education Service distributes political 
pamphlets. Many of these are produced by that other radical or- 
ganization, The League for Industrial Democracy. As an indication 
of how uninformed the trustees of The Ford Foundation must be 
regarding the detail of their foundation's operations, one of the 
pamphlets widely distributed by the Ford-supported American 
Labor Education Service is entitled "Fordism.” It is hardly com- 
plimentary to the Ford Motor Company or to the memory of the 
man who made the Ford Foundation billions available. 

That The Ford Foundation might consider establishing general 
and special courses of instruction for "labor” can be understood; 
such educational efforts directed especially at factory workers 
could be highly desirable. There cannot be any possible justifica- 
tion, however, for the use of public trust funds to support organi- 
zations devoted to "educating” labor to the leftist ends of such as 
The American Labor Education Service and The League for In- 
dustrial Democracy. It is difficult to believe that the Ford trustees 
would countenance such appropriations were they aware of their 
• Ibid., p. io6. 


nature. The answer is that these trustees are quite out of touch 
with much of the work of the great foundation which they, in the- 
ory, administer. 

It is difficult to believe that the Ford trustees have any under- 
standing of the nature of the Inter-University Labor Education 
Committee to which The Fund for Adult Education granted 
$384,000 from January 1, 1952, to June 30, 1953. The Reece 
Committee found an undated publication of this Education Com- 
mittee entitled Labor’s Stake in World Affairs. It was marked “Pre- 
liminary Draft for Limited Distribution and Comment. 1 ' 

This publication characterized the conflict between Russia and 
the United States as a “struggle for world power." Labor must 
fight communism, it indicated, but the impression was given to the 
“labor" which The Ford Foundation was thus helping to “edu* 
cate" that the Soviet Union wants peace, is against imperialism 
and intervention, and wishes to cooperate with the United States. 
This publication equates the Berlin airlift with the Russian block- 
ade — one was no worse than the other — indeed, what could the 
Russians do, it said, when the Western Powers restored industrial- 
ization to Western Germany instead of persisting in agrarianiza- 
tion? — the Russian blockade was a just retaliation. 

The question is asked, should we (labor) fight if Russia at- 
tacks? The answer given is “yes." Then the question is asked, 
But what if we start the war? No answer is suggested. 

These are illustrations of the tenor of this Ford-financed work of 
“education" of “labor."* 


On October 5, 1955, a luncheon took place on the premises of 
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, at which Mr. 
Chester Bowles delivered an address in which he explained the 
usefulness of private agencies working abroad. He said: 

The voluntary agencies have more force than representa- 
tives of the government. They do not suffer from the re- 

• Ibid., pp. 162-163. 


straints imposed on official emissaries. They are free peo- 

The same issue of the Times which reported this speech also re- 
ported one by Mr. Paul Hoffman, former chairman of The Ford 
Foundation and later chairman of its Fund for the Republic. Mr. 
Hoffman, like Mr. Bowles, praised “voluntary welfare agencies.’ 1 
Mr. Hoffman was speaking at a dinner of the newly created Fund 
for Asia. 

It is obvious enough that “voluntary agencies” are, in general, 
most highly desirable when engaged in philanthropic work. When 
such agencies, however, operate in the international area, con- 
siderable risk may be involved. Dealing with the treacherous in- 
ternational situation might better be left to government agencies, 
whatever their limitations. 

The Fund for Asia may be a wholly commendable enterprise. 
But it would be well to understand whose agency it is to be; what 
Asians it is to be “for”; who is to distribute its largess; and for what 
purposes. “Agencies” often have an angelic appearance but turn 
out to be unfortunate media as distributors of public trust funds. 

The Reece Committee found an example of this in the case of 
The American Friends Service Committee, to which The Ford 
Foundation made very heavy grants. The Service Committee is an 
active lobbying organization whose policies have included an ac- 
quiescence, at least, in the Communist penetration of China. A re- 
port of The American Friends Service Committee contained this 
astounding statement: 

Our own independence was achieved through a revolution, 
and we have traditionally sympathized with the determined 
attempts of other peoples to win national independence and 
higher standards of living. The current revolution in Asia 
is a similar movement, whatever its present association with 
Soviet Communism.f 

• The New York Times , Oct. 6, 1955. 
j- Recce Committee Report, p. 186. 


One cannot get enthusiastic over the use by The Ford Founda- 
tion of this agency for distributing its funds — an organization 
which docs not seem to see any material difference between the 
American Revolution and the Communist movement in China. 
Yet Ford granted the Service Committee 51,134,000. Its expressed 
justification for the size of this grant was that the officers of The 
American Friends Service Committee had demonstrated their ca- 
pacity “to deal effectively with” conditions which “lead to interna- 
tional tensions.” 

But was everyone in The Ford Foundation, for example, igno- 
rant of the fact that, in 1950, The American Friends Service Com- 
mittee had written to President Truman: 

Further intervention will result in the hardening of Chinese 
resentment against America and the strengthening of Sino- 
Russian ties. By treating Communist China as an enemy 
and by refusing to recognize her, we are not isolating 
China, we are isolating ourselves.* 

The American Friends Service Committee was itself a tax- 
exempt organization. The propriety of such an organization at- 
tempting to influence the foreign policy of the United States can- 
not be defended. Moreover, its public pronouncements had shown 
that funds distributed by it might well be used for objectives suit- 
ing its own theories of foreign relations, regardless of the extent to 
which these might conflict with those of our government. 

One of the grandiose schemes of The Ford Foundation (in its 
selected area of "The Establishment of Peace”) was the creation 
of Intercultural Publications, Inc., to "increase understanding 
among peoples.” What kind of an "understanding” of the people 
of the United States has this creature of The Ford Foundation 
given to other nations? The Reece Committee found among the 
members of the advisory board of Intercultural Publications, Inc. 
(and among those who contributed articles to its periodical or 
whose books were reviewed in it) a large number of persons with 

# Ibid., p. 187. 


extensive Communist-front associations or o£ extreme leftist tend- 

Whatever mistakes our own government may have made, and 
may be making, in portraying the American people and their po- 
litical and social ideas to others, it would seem far safer for us to 
rely upon government than upon a creature of The Ford Founda- 
tion to do our international “public relations” job for us. 

The Ford Foundation has apparently spent some $90,000,000 
in aid of foreign countries, There is considerable doubt whether 
the American people have received their money’s worth for the 
many billions spent by our government on foreign aid. But at least 
this has been official spending, authorized by our elected represent- 
atives. The millions spent abroad by The Ford Foundation consti- 
tute public trust funds, spent by private individuals without the 
people's consent, knowledge, or understanding. 

Time was when foundations confined themselves, in foreign 
grants, to religious objectives (such as the establishing of missions); 
educational purposes (such as the creation and support of 
schools); and public health. Not so today. Some of them, Ford 
and Rockefeller particularly, have launched themselves widely 
into foreign projects which might be classed as international “do- 
gooding,” along program lines of their own design. In the case of 
The Ford Foundation, responsibility can probably be attributed 
to Mr. Paul Hoffman, who became so accustomed to paying out 
gigantic sums for foreign aid when he was an administrator of our 
government's aid program that he could not curtail the habit. 

To what extent have these foreign grants of The Ford Founda- 
tion interfered or worked at cross-purposes with our State De- 
partment? To what extent have they supported ideologies to 
which Mr. Hoffman and his associates have been attached, though 
they contravened what is acceptable to the American people? To 
what extent have these private administrators of public trust funds 
wasted millions and millions of dollars? I cite one example of 
waste mentioned by Mr, Macdonald — the grant by Ford to The 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace of $100,000 to assist 
in undertaking “a two year program of studies of national policies 


and attitudes toward the United Nations." Mr. Macdonald char- 
acterized this project as “like making a map of a cloud hovering 
over a fog." # 

Apparently The Ford Foundation, under Mr. Hoffman's guid- 
ance, concluded that our relations with some “undeveloped" na- 
tions could be improved by the expenditure of great sums in those 
countries. Our own government had had a similar theory. How- 
ever, as I have said, it would seem safer to let our government take 
whatever risks are involved than to permit private agencies to al- 
locate public trust monies for such ends. The millions, for exam- 
ple, which Ford has poured into India — have they been well spent? 
This enormous nation now shows an increasing distaste for the 
United States and a rapidly increasing affection for the Soviet 
government. Should it not occur to the trustees of The Ford 
Foundation that they have no business using public trust funds 
to further a Ford Foundation Foreign Policy? 

A startling example of Ford Foundation Foreign Policy is its 
recent grant of $500,000 to allow Polish social scientists, archi- 
tects, engineers and writers to study in the United States and 
Western Europe, and for a few American and European scholars, 
to study in Poland. The Rockefeller Foundation has joined this 
new procession and has announced a $475,000 grant to Poland 
“for scientific research in agriculture and medicine.” f It does not 
appeal to my sense of logic that we should be assisting the Com- 
munist Empire. But, if contrary opinion is valid and the Commu- 
nists of the Iron Curtain countries should be assisted, should not 
that decision be made by our President and Congress rather than 
by the Ford or Rockefeller foundations? After all. The Ford Foun- 
dation and The Rockefeller Foundation are dispensing public 
trust funds. I cannot imagine any stretch of logic or interpretation 
of propriety which would entitle foundation trustees to apply 
American, public trust funds to the use of Communists, 

One of the most fantastically futile and wasteful projects de- 
signed by Mr. Hoffman for The Ford Foundation was a study of 

* The Ford Foundation, p. 104. 
t New York Herald Tribune , May ay, 1957, 


how we could achieve peace. It was Mr. Hoffman’s naive belief 
that the expenditure of enough money on “studies” could find the 
answers which The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 
had not been able to discover in all its long history. Apparently, 
it was Mr. Hoffman’s theory, which he convinced the trustees to 
adopt, that there was no basic problem of Soviet intransigence or 
of Russian determination to destroy the capitalist world. All that 
was needed was for a group of scholars to sit down and figure out 
what we had to do, and what the Russians had to do, so that peace 
could reign. Something like $100,000 of the Foundation’s public 
trust funds went down this drain. 

Nor has the Foundation given up hope that better international ‘ 
relations can be developed if only the American people become 
more “international-minded.” This thesis has governed a large 
part of the work of The Carnegie Endowment. But the Endow- 
ment cannot plunge the way The Ford Foundation can. The lat- 
ter allotted $6,500, 000 to six law schools “to develop a program of 
international studies.” And the program for “intercultural rela- 
tions,” started by Mr. Hoffman, is being continued with a probable 
aggregate expenditure of $375,000. Mr. Macdonald has said, “The 
budget reads like an academic W.P.A.”* 

Indeed, with so much money to spend, The Ford Foundation 
obviously must scramble around actively to find ways in which to 
use its vast funds. Quite a large percentage of its grants might be 
classed with the “boondoggling” of the 3o’s. Far more serious 
than such waste of public trust money, however, are the instances 
of affirmatively harmful projects. Of these, one of the worst is The 
Fund for the Republic. 


The Fund for the Republic is the finest flower of what might be 
called the “philandering school of philanthropy.” It was the brain 
child of Mr. Paul Hoffman, probably midwifed by Dr. Hutchins. It 
was born simultaneously with Mr. Hoffman’s release as chairman 
of The Ford Foundation, and it is not unreasonable to suppose 

* Ibid.j pp. 164-165. 


that there was a connection between the two events. It is sus- 
pected that Mr. Hoffman was given charge of the $15,000,000 
capital of The Fund for the Republic, to use for the promotion of 
some of his favorite ideas, as a sop to his feelings.* 

It was not long before The Ford Foundation trustees decided 
that they could not stand Dr. Hutchins either, and relieved him 
of his duties as a principal director, whereupon Mr. Hoffman in- 
stalled him as president of The Fund for the Republic, to the chair- 
manship of which Mr. Hoffman had been demoted. Messrs. Hoff- 
man and Hutchins were thus together again. Inasmuch as The 
Fund for the Republic was given independence by The Ford 
Foundation, these two were to have their heyday. 

The Fund for the Republic holds itself out to be educational in 
purpose. Its handsome and expensively printed report of May 31, 
1 955 't includes this statement, written by Dr. Hutchins: 

The object of the Fund is to advance an understanding of 
civil liberties. The Board of Directors believes that the 
rights of Americans should not be compromised or lost 
through neglect or confusion. It believes that the citizen 
should know what his rights are and what is happening to 

These noble purposes were put to the test when a proposal was 
made to The Fund for the Republic that it cause a study to be 
made of the rights reserved to the people by the Ninth and Tenth 
Amendments to the Constitution. No grant was requested — the sug- 
gestion was merely that the Fund, itself or through others, under- 
take such a study. It seemed logical enough. The Fund claimed to 
be interested in “civil liberties” and the proposal was to let the 
people know what their “liberties” are. 

• There is even another Hoffman in the picture. Mr. Hallock Hoffman, son 
of Mr. Paul Hoffman, is listed as "Assistant to the President.'’ Nepotism? 
t The Fund has never denied itself. In the first two years of operation, 
it consumed $410,000 to make grants of $843,000. Its offices, both in Tasadena 
and New York, have been luxurious. Expense has seemed no serious concern, 
Salaries have been by no means niggardly. Mr. Hutchins gets along on a 
$50,000 salary; his assistant on one, I believe, of $35,000; and counsel is sim. 
ilarly compensated. 


Certain rights and “liberties” were expressly reserved to the peo- 
ple in the Constitution and its Amendments. The Ninth and 
Tenth Amendments provided, further, that any rights which the 
people might have which were not expressly enumerated were also 
reserved to them. The point is, nobody seems to have any very 
clear idea what these unenumerated, reserved rights may be. 
Surelyi if The Fund for the Republic is dedicated to the purpose 
(to use Dr. Hutchins's actual words) that “the rights of Americans 
should not be compromised or lost through neglect or confusion,” 
one might think it a necessary and basic use of some of its money 
to have a study made to determine what our rights are. Surely, 
if Dr. Hutchins meant what he said, that he wanted the citizen to 
“know what his rights are and what is happening to them,” the 
proposed study was a “must.” 

The proposal was rejected in writing by The Fund for the Re- 
public on the ground that it did not fit into its program. 

This reaction might have been expected. The documents attend- 
ing the creation of The Fund for the Republic convinced the 
Reece Committee that one of the Fund's purposes had been to in- 
vestigate Congressional investigations. It has turned out, in opera- 
tion, even more dangerous than the Committee anticipated. While 
the Reece Committee investigation was under way, The Fund 
kept its skirts moderately clean. Since the fding of the Committee 
report, however, it has shown its true colors as a propaganda 
agency for the leftist political ideas of its directing officers, Messrs, 
Hoffman and Hutchins, and similarly disposed, carefully col- 
lected associates. 

The Fund for the Republic now has to its credit many monu- 
mental achievements in propaganda: 

1. A $100,000 study of the Federal loyalty-security program, in- 
tended to bring out criticism of the methods used to clear Commu- 
nists and Communist sympathizers out of government employ. 
Mr. Walter Millis, a consultant to the Fund, is associated with this 
project. Mr. Millis, in a recent radio debate with Judge Robert 
Morris, said: “What I object to is not the procedure in the [loy- 
alty-security] program, but the very fact that the system is there.” 


2. The subsidization of the Edward R, Murrow project to 
circulate among schools and elsewhere his extended T.V. inter- 
view with Robert Oppenheimer. This project was intended to 
glamorize Dr. Oppenheimer after he had been stripped of his se- 
curity clearance — an obvious attempt to discredit the security sys- 

3. The $150,000 survey of high-school and college teachers to 
ascertain the degree to which they have "feared” to teach contro- 
versial subjects in the classrooms. The intention of this project was 
to propagandize the false claim that the loyalty-security program 
and “hysteria'' on the part of the anti-Communists has terrorized 
innocent teachers. 

4. $300,000 study of the influence of communism in contempo- 
rary American life. This project has distinguished itself by hiring 
Earl Browder, former head of the Communist Party in the United 
States and still an ardent Communist. It has also assigned a sub- 
project to one Theodore Draper, who was once a reporter for The 
Daily Worker and graduated from that to The New Masses . 

5. The $185,500 study of "American attitudes, toward commu- 
nism and civil liberties." The purpose of this, obviously enough, is 
to promote the Hoffman-Hutchins theory that our security meas- 
ures violate "civil rights” and that the protection of these rights 
may be more important than protecting ourselves against commu- 

6. The $64,500 study of the "Communist record," including 
bibliographies. This project has produced A Bibliography on the 
Communist Problem in the United States . It has been blasted by a 
great number of informed critics. Professor Philip Taft of Brown 
University, a leading authority on communism in trade unions, 
has said that The Fund for the Republic deserves a "vote of 
thanks from the Communist Party." James T. Farrell, chairman of 
the American Committee for Cultural Freedom, called it "inex- 
cusable sloppiness.” Dr. John A. Sessions, assistant director of the 
International Ladies Garment Workers Training Institute, has 
been scorching in his criticism. He said the Bibliography "con- 
sistently omitted the more important works of many of the very 


writers who have done most to illuminate the Communist prob- 
lem.” "If/* wrote Dr. Sessions in The New Leader , "the Fund seri- 
ously wishes to defend itself against such attacks as have been 
leveled against it by Fulton Lewis and the American Legion, it 
must do something to make amends for this bibliography.”* 

7. The $40,000 production of Freedom to Read, a film calcu- 
lated to attack the banning of pro-Communist books from U. S. 
Information Service propaganda libraries. 

8. The purchase and circulation of a propaganda booklet writ- 
ten by Dean Griswold of the Harvard Law School, entitled The 
Fifth Amendment Today, a brief for the Fifth Amendment plead- 
ers. Against the mass of material issued to the public of an anti- 
anti-Communist nature, the Fund, as far as I have been able to 
learn, has distributed only one piece of contrary literature. This is 
an article written by C. Dickerman Williams, which devastates the 
booklet. The Fifth Amendment Today, written by Dean Griswold. 
But 35,000 copies of the Griswold book were distributed. And 
only 1,000 of the Williams replyl Regarding Dean Griswold's 
position, Mr. Williams had this to say in the National Review, 
December 21, 1955: 

* * * it is unfortunate, if not tragic, that the Harvard 
Law School — with its energy, intelligence and prestige, and 
its militant stand on the side of disclosure during the in- 
vestigations of monopoly in the 1890*5 and 1 goo’s, of cor- 
ruption in the 1920’$ and of questionable business practices 
in the 1930’$— should be identified with the cause of conceal- 
ment today, when the country is confronted with the far 
more serious danger of Soviet penetration. The “methods’* 
and personalities of congressional investigators, whatever 
they may be, hardly warrant such a reversal of position. 

As far as I know, the Fund For The Republic has not distrib- 
uted any copies of Common Sense And The Fifth Amendment, 

• See Experts Hit Ford Fund Red Guide , New York World-Telegram, October 
28, 1955. A revised Bibliography was subsequently produced but is by no 
means adequate. 


by Professor Sidney Hook of New York University (Criterion 
Books, 1957), which leaves Dean Griswold s book in shreds. 

9. The circulation of a large number of other leftish books, 
among them 

Banned Books , by Anne Lyon Haight; 

Faceless Informers and our Schools , by Lawrence Martin; 

Freedom Award Speeches , by Freedom House; 

The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt , by Richard Hofstadter; 

Grand Inquest , by Telford Taylor; 

Government by Investigation, by Alan Barth; 

Conformity and Civil Liberties, by Samuel A. Stouffer; 

The Kept Witness, by Richard H. Rovere; 

To Insure the End of Our Hysteria, by Paul Hoffman; 

Who “Collaborated” with Russia, by Paul Willen 

delivered to legislators, lawyers, judges, college presidents and 
others who might create opinion or influence legislation. 

to. The purchase and wide distribution of a propaganda issue 
of The Journal of the Atomic Scientists, intended as an attack on 
our security system. 

1 1. The $100,000 “blacklisting' 1 study: the circulation of a ques- 
tionnaire to firms using radio and television to discover what anti- 
Communists are doing. 

1 2. An appropriation of $200,000 (later revoked under sufficient 
ridicule and, perhaps, fear of losing tax exemption) to put Herb 
Block on television. Herb Block is a cartoonist for the Washington 
Post-Times. The 1954 report of The Fund for the Republic lists 
this project under “Popular Education.” David Lawrence de- 
scribed Mr. Block as “a cartoonist who regularly ridicules the se- 
curity program and is noted for his 'Left Wing' cartoons.”* 

13. The gift of $5,000 to a Quaker school board for its “cour- 
ageous and effective defense of democratic principles” in having 
voted to retain a Mrs. Knowles as a librarian. Mr. Herbert Phil- 
brick, an F.B.I. undercover agent, had testified under oath that 
Mrs. Knowles had been a member of the very Communist cell 

* N.Y. Herald Tribune, Sc pt. 16, 1955. 


which he had joined in his F.B.I. work — and Mrs. Knowles had in- 
terposed the Fifth Amendment when asked under oath whether 
she had ever been a Communist. 

14. The employment on its staff of one Amos Landman, three 
weeks after he had been named under oath as having been a Com- 
munist and had himself pleaded the Fifth Amendment when 
asked whether he had ever been one. His employment by The 
Fund for the Republic was as a " publicity man!” Dr. Hutchins 
had recently gone so far (it took him quite a while to get there) as 
to admit that communism was a danger to the United States. 
Nevertheless, he has stated that he would hire a Communist if he 
were "qualified" for the job at hand, regardless of the man’s previ- 
ous record, 

15. The $25,000 “study" at Stanford University of the testi- 
mony of witnesses in proceedings relating to communism. This 
study was accepted by the dean of the Stanford Law School 
without the approval of the trustees. The dean is the director of 
Far Eastern Affairs for The Ford Foundation. The study is to be 
conducted under one Herbert Packer, a former employee of The 
Fund for the Republic. The result will no doubt be a deprecation 
of the testimony of reformed Communists, such as Elizabeth Bent- 
ley and Louis Budenz, whose disclosures of Communists have 
been so important to the security of the United States. 

16. The grant of $395,000 to The Southern Regional Council. 
The New York Journal American reported on November 7, 1955, 
that the board of directors of this organization “includes 21 
members with past pro-Communist affiliations." 

David Lawrence, in his column of August \ 8 , 1955, referring 
to The Fund for the Republic, called attention to the "current 
wave of appeasement" which is destroying our national ideals, and 

There is, for example, a deliberate attempt to pooh-pooh 
Communist infiltration in the United States. Scarcely a day 
passes that some blow isn’t struck at those who are fighting 
Communist subversion. Thus, in the last few days a docu- 


ment has been published o£ a study financed by the Ford 
Foundation. It selects pieces of testimony and tries to make 
the security proceedings of the United States look capricious 
and ludicrous. Nowhere is the full transcript of any hearings 
given so that both sides of the cross-examination and the 
reasons for it can be understood. 

When Sen. McCarthy stood up in the Senate and gave se- 
lected items about individuals suspected of Communist as- 
sociations, he was pilloried for giving only one side. But 
when the Ford Foundation study gives only piecemeal items 
without all the background, no criticism is voiced from 
"Left Wing" quarters. Recently there has been a hue and 
cry about anonymous informants but the Ford Foundation 
study now being publicized is anonymous so far as giving 
the facts or the story of both sides or the sources of the 

Nor is any information being given to the public as to why 
some of the questions asked in hearings could be pertinent 
to a security investigation. * * * It is only common sense 
not to let anybody occupy a government position or be given 
a post in the armed services if he could later be the victim 
of attempted blackmail. 

The American Legion has several times, at its national conven- 
tion, adopted resolutions urging Congress to make a further and 
complete study of tax-exempt foundations. National Commander 
Seaborn P. Collins of the American Legion, according to a New 
York Herald Tribune report of September 11, 1955, called on 
Legion members to "have no truck" with The Fund for the Re- 
public. He said: 

I am issuing this alert to our membership because it appears 
that the Fund for the Republic, headed by Dr. Robert 
Maynard Hutchins, is threatening and may succeed in crip- 
pling the national security. 


He accused the Fund o£ ‘‘constant, loaded criticism o£ Congres- 
sional and Administration efforts to resist Communist infiltra- 
tion.” He said: 

One apparent line of attack is the attempt to persuade 
Americans that communism is not, and never has been, a 
serious threat to the United States. 

This propaganda is considered by the American Legion 
to be as dangerous as it is untrue, but we recognize that 
even such propaganda as that being disseminated by the 
Fund for the Republic can be sold to many Americans when 
millions of dollars are behind the sales effort. 

After the American Legion had become critical of his work, Dr. 
Hutchins took a paid full-page ad in the A?nerican Legion Maga- 
zine to defend The Fund for the Republic. The Legion Magazine, 
in commenting on this advertisement, said: 

Incidentally, we are holding in escrow the money paid for 
the advertisement on the preceding page. There is a dif- 
ference of opinion as to whether an eleemosynary organiza- 
tion may properly spend money in this way, and we are 
holding it till such time as this point is adjudicated. 

It should concern the Internal Revenue Service whether a foun- 
dation is expending its funds for purposes entitling it to tax ex- 
emption when it buys advertising space in magazines and when it 
engages “public relations counselors. “ 

The Fund for the Republic is not without defenders. The New 
York Times of September 25, 1955, reported that Dr. Nathan M. 
Pusey, president of Harvard University, had said, in an address of 
the day before, that the attack on The Fund by Mr. Collins of the 
Legion was “an incredibly misguided action.“ The Times reported 

Noting that several trustees of the Fund for the Republic 
were present, Dr. Pusey said that the record would show 
“to any fair-minded observer" that the Fund had hewed 


to its basic aims in two years of operation. (Emphasis sup* 

Dr. Pusey was entirely correct — that is, if the aims of The Fund 
for the Republic were, as the Reece Committee suspected, to prop- 
agandize for certain extreme '‘liberal" political views. 

In December 1955 Mr. George Meany, president of the 
merged A.F.L. and C.I.O., delivered a fiery address inveighing 
against the quiescent attitude of “liberals" toward communism. He 

Communism is the very opposite of liberalism. Communism 
is the deadliest enemy of liberalism. Liberals should be the 
most consistent and energetic fighters against communism. 
Liberals must also be on guard against developing a certain 
type of McCarthyism of their own. They must shun like a 
plague the role of being anti-anti-Communist. 

The Fund for the Republic has not shunned this role. It has be- 
come the leader of the anti-anti-Communist movement in the 
United States. 

Not only have Mr. Hoffman and Dr. Hutchins given an anti-anti- 
Communist leadership to The Fund for the Republic, but it has 
been a very fuzzy one, indeed. This was brought out in an edito- 
rial in the Los Angeles Times of August 28, 1955, which dis- 
cussed the current Fund report. The editorial said that there was a 
question whether The Ford Foundation had “got its money’s 
worth out of the Fund’s $2,514,738 expenditures to date." The 
editorial reviewed the basic laws which protect our “civil rights" 
and then said; 

One is tempted to believe that these basic laws have not 
been carefully read by Dr. Hutchins. For in his report 
he says: 

“The treatment accorded suspected persons in Congres- 
sional hearings has not always been that contemplated by the 
Sixth Amendment: 

Here is the Sixth Amendment: 

"In all criminal prosecutionsj the accused shall enjoy the 


right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of 
the Slate and district zoherein the crime shall have been 
committed, which district shall have been previously ascer- 
tained by lazo, and to be informed of the nature and cause of 
the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses agamst 
him ; to have compulsory process for obtaiziing zoitnesses in 
his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his de- 
fense ” 

Neither Congressional investigations or administrative 
hearings are mentioned in the amendment. For neither of 
these is a “criminal prosecution/' If there is reasonable evi- 
dence of criminality, the normal processes of trial then take 
place wherein the individuals concerned have the complete 
protection of the Constitution. 

These are samples of the hazy thinking about civil rights 
in the Hutchins report and a continuation of the bizarre 
points of view he has had in these matters, * * * 

I must record one more example of Fund For The Republic 
absurdity. While the manuscript of this book was in final process 
of preparation, the New York Herald Tribune (July 2, 1957) re- 
ported an announcement by the Fund For The Republic of the 
appointment of a committee of “consultants’* who are to under- 
take an inquiry into “the impact on individual freedom and civil 
liberty of two large modern institutions — the industrial corpora- 
tion and the labor union/* The “consultants*’ are: Adolph A. 
Berle, Henry R. Luce, Scott Buchanan, Eugene Burdick, Eric 
Goldman, Clark Kerr, the Rev. John Courtney Murray, Isador I. 
Rabi, Robert Redfield and Reinhold Niebuhr. While this com- 
mittee is obviously well-stacked with “liberals” — some extremely 
to the left — it has one further interesting characteristic. In his syn- 
dicated column of August 1, 1957, Raymond Moley pointed out 
that the list reveals “an astonishing absence of people who have 
ever had any experience with either corporations or unions. All 
except one are professors or college administrators/* The one ex- 
ception (Mr. Luce), said Moley, has had no experience “in the 


industrial climate which conditions the problems with which this 
study purports to deal.” 

Moley concludes: “The exclusion of people experienced in run- 
ning corporations and labor unions makes certain that the personal 
views of Hutchins will have no opposition.” The panel of “con- 
sultants” is a carefully hand-picked one. An objective report from 
this group is too much to hope for. I wonder whether the new 
management of The Ford Foundation is pleased with this project 
generated by its offspring, The Fund. 


The Fund for the Republic raises, in a harrowing way, the prob- 
lem of trustees’ responsibility. Some of the statements filed with 
the Reece Committee by foundations proclaimed the utterly 
sound principle that a foundation should not exercise censorship 
in the execution of a grant. But they used this sound principle to 
excuse . themselves from responsibility for damage which could 
have been anticipated. There is a great deal of difference between 
insisting on controlling the research engaged in by Professor 
Jones to whom a grant has been made, and making sure that the 
professor to be selected for the grant is not one given to radicalism 
and strong bias in his work. There is a world of difference be- 
tween requiring conformity of a researcher and insisting on objec- 
tivity in selecting him; the former is reprehensible; the latter is a 
public duty. 

Yes, there might be one exception to this conclusion. A grant 
might properly be made to a person of known bias, if this were 
part of a program or plan in which the contrary point of view 
would also be adequately and fairly presented to the public. 

According to newspaper reports, Mr. Henry Ford II finally got 
around to disavowing The Fund for the Republic. He did this in a 
series of letters to correspondents who asked him why he re- 
mained silent in view of the apparent record of the Ford Foun- 
dation-created Fund. Mr. Ford said that some of the actions of 
The Fund for the Republic “have been dubious in character and 
inevitably have led to charges of poor judgment.” This was rather 


a weak disavowal. Mr. Ford must know that some o£ the activities 
of the Fund have been more than “dubious" and that far more 
than mere poverty of “judgment” was involved. Mr. Ford main- 
tained, in any event, that The Ford Foundation was not responsi- 
ble in any way, because it had created the Fund as an independent 
unit, to be managed by its own board.* This position cannot be 
accepted by the public. 

As The Wall Street Journal of December 9, 1955, put it in an 
editorial commenting on Mr, Ford’s position: 

So here are a group of men who have been handed $15 
million to spend in the Ford name for political and educa- 
tional purposes without being accountable to anyone. They 
are not subject to recall or referendum. They appoint their 
own successors. They could if they chose, adopt projects to 
“educate” for communism, fascism or whatever fancy struck 
their heads. And no one could say them nay. 

Can Mr. Ford and the other Ford Foundation trustees dodge 
responsibility by saying that they created an independent and self- 
governing unit? Can one, fairly and ethically, just pour fifteen mil- 
lion dollars into anyone’s lap and say: “Do with this what you 
will; I wash my hands of what you do”? Yes, perhaps that might 
be done in making a grant to a university, a church, a hospital, or 
some other responsible, existing institution with recognizable and 
acceptable traditions and standards. Otherwise, the maxim dele- 
gatus non potest delegare applies— that no trustee can delegate his 
trust function.f 

No, the money being so wrongfully used by The Fund for the 
Republic is Ford Foundation money, and the public, which was 
required to be made the beneficiary of The Ford Foundation in 

* Actually, the umbilical cord between The Ford Foundation and The Fund 
for the Republic was not wholly severed. It was provided that, if the Fund 
lost its tax exemption, its remaining money would revert to the parent. 

•j-This maxim was quoted at the Cox Committee hearings by Dr. Henry 
Allen Moe of The John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. This 
foundation, itself, made many regrettable grants, some of them to Commu- 
nists; but at least Dr. Moe did not try to dodge the responsibility of trustees 
for the application of the funds they administer. 


order for the Ford family to reap the tax advantages which went 
with its creation, is entitled to trace that money and to judge its 

The grant to The Fund for the Republic was not made unwit- 
tingly. The trustees selected Mr. Paul Hoffman to run it. They 
must have known Mr. Hoffman’s opinions and proclivities and un- 
derstood that its offshoot, placed in his control, would likely follow 
his bent — just, indeed, as they must have known, when placing Dr. 
Hutchins in charge of The Fund for the Advancement of Educa- 
tion, that the result would be a Hutchins product. 

The Ford trustees might have acquired some insight into the 
way The Fund for the Republic would be managed when its 
chairman, Mr. Hoffman, initially announced that it proposed "to 
help restore respectability to individual freedom”— -a statement 
which the Reece Committee report characterized as "obviously a 
product of the ‘red herring’ and ‘witch hunt’ school of political 
philosophy" and as "arrogant, presumptuous and insulting."* 

The Ford trustees should also have known that there were in- 
herent dangers in the detailed program which Mr. Hoffman pre- 
sented to them for The Fund for the Republic. This touched deli- 
cate political areas. A foundation should not necessarily shy from 
delicate areas. If it wishes to enter them, however, it is ethically 
obliged to exercise the greatest circumspection. Every reasonable 
effort should be made to assure that subjects which contain politi- 
cal dynamite will be handled with the care they require — with full 
objectivity and fairness. In permitting their creature. The Fund 
for the Republic, to become a propaganda machine for the ad- 
vancement of leftist political ideas, the Ford trustees abandoned 
their duty to the public to whose service they were dedicated by 
accepting appointment. By suffering The Fund for the Republic to 
fall into the hands of persons "who might have been expected to 
use it for propaganda, these Ford trustees, by negligence at least, 
became party to actions against the public welfare. 

The statement filed by The Ford Foundation with the Reece 
Committee said: 

• Reece Committee Report p. 1 14 . 


The trustees of the Ford Foundation are proud of their act 
in creating the Fund for the Republic.* 

Since then we have had Mr. Henry Ford II's qualified and gen- 
tle disapproval of some of the actions of The Fund for the Repub- 
lic. But his was an expression of personal opinion. There has been 
no, official Ford Foundation repudiation of The Fund for the Re- 
public. As far as the public knows, except for Mr. Ford’s moderate 
criticism of The Fund for the Republic, the trustees are wholly sat- 
isfied. with all the Ford Foundation's works, 


Nothing would be more conducive to better foundation public re- 
lations than for these trustees to come forward with frank self- 
criticism, disclosing to the public (whose interests they represent) 
exactly how dissatisfied they have been with their performance to 
date. I am sure they cannot be entirely happy, and an honest self- 
critical report could constitute a most valuable catharsis. 

When the major grants of the Ford Foundation in 1955 were 
announced, many saw hope that its trustees had come to under- 
stand the error of their ways and were ready to abandon the dis- 
sipation of their funds in scientism and worse. Such hopes may 
have been illusions, as the facts narrated in the following syndi- 
cated article by Raymond Moley of February 29, 1956, may indi- 


The Influence of The Ford Foundation in The 
Harvard Graduate School of Business 

The final report of Donald K. David, signalizing his re- 
tirement as dean of the Graduate School of Business Ad- 
ministration at Harvard, provides a vivid example of the 
immense power that the Ford Foundation is exercising 
over academic institutions of even the highest rank, And 

• Reece Committee Hearings , p. 1053. 


that influence, it seems, will be directed toward the adop- 
tion by such institutions of a very special type of research 
which seems to have possessed the Foundation since the 
beginning of its career under Paul Hoffman and Robert 

It seems that during the past year the Ford Foundation 
bestowed upon the school a grant of $2,000,000 for re- 
search, with a strong hint that it be used in large part to 
"further the increased use of the behavioral sciences, es- 
pecially sociology, psychology and anthropology, in research 
in and teaching of business administration." When three 
billion dollars gives a hint, of course, it is a command. 

It is interesting that Dean David is also a director of the 
Ford Foundation, which raises the point of not a conflict, 
but what might be called a community of interests. It is 
more blessed to give than to receive. But when you can give 
and receive at the same time, you may consider yourself 
twice blessed. 

It is also interesting to note that the dean’s report was 
sent to graduates of the school with a covering letter from 
Thomas H. Carroll, who is not only president of the alumni 
association but Vice President of the Ford Foundation. 

The directive that the funds be used on the “behavioral” 
sciences follows almost the exact language of the original 
purposes of the Ford Foundation. 

The dean's report points out that research undertaken 
in the school "must represent the specific interests of the 
individual members of the Faculty," Apparently the "spe- 
cific interests" of the present members of the faculty do not 
provide the preoccupation with "behaviorism" so dear to 
the Ford people. Accordingly, new talent is to be sum- 
moned in the person of Professor Samuel A. Stouffer of the 
Department of Social Relations across the Charles River. 

Dr. Stouffer is well fitted to lead the business school into 
the mysterious "scientism" desired by the Ford Foundation, 
He has been a member of no less than four Ford advisory 


committees. During the war he served in the so-called 
Information and Education Division of the War Depart- 
ment. Mainly, according to ex-service men, that operation 
was intent upon performing as many curious behavioristic 
experiments as possible while the human guinea pigs were 
under what social scientists call “control.’' He is co-author of 
“The American Soldier,” a work which will be bitterly 
remembered by many responsible army officers. At the Uni- 
versity of Chicago and later at Harvard he was able to 
conduct his “controlled” probings on sophomores. At the 
business school. Dr. Stouffer will work with a team of the 
faculty leading toward a “new long-range program of re- 
search in the area of consumer behavior.” One graduate of 
the school said, after reading of the expected visitation of 
Dr. Stouffer, that apparently “controlled experiments” 
which have hitherto been possible only on (a) soldiers, 
(b) sophomores, (c) guests in state institutions, will now be 
performed upon (d) customers for the benefit of prospective 
marketing experts. 

So the old rule that the customer is a supreme being who 
is always right will no longer have that distinction. He is 
to become a guinea pig along with many other formerly 
free citizens. 

Lawyers well remember the invasion by the behaviorists 
of the law schools and the strange sociological judicial opin- 
ions we have seen in recent years. Now business manage- 
ment is to have its turn. 

In any event, this whole matter illustrates the creeping 
control by the bureaucracy of the Ford Foundation over 
higher education. It can happen even in a school like 
this which has won a fine distinction by keeping fairly 
close to its major interest which, according to its catalogue, 
is “to provide opportunity for men to develop themselves 
for positions of responsibility in private business or in the 
business of government.” In short, business was its busi- 


There is other evidence that the Ford trustees either have not yet 
assumed full control of the foundation enterprise or else have not 
yet decided to change the foundation’s coloration. In an article in 
the National Review of April n, 1956, Mr. William Henry 
Chamberlin deplores the support by The Ford Foundation of 
The Foreign Policy Association, which apparently expects to re- 
ceive a further twelve and a half million dollars from the founda- 
tion. Mr. Chamberlin points out that the “general influence” of 
The Foreign Policy Association “on American public opinion has 
been in the direction of anti-anti-Communism.” This he lays 
chiefly at the door of the guiding genius of the Association, Vera 
Micheles Dean, now its president. This publication, he says, has 
borne “over a period of a decade and more, the unmistakable 
stamp of anti-anti-Communism.” The support of this leftward- 
tending organization has not come from the severed Fund for the 
Republic but from The Ford Foundation itself. And it is appar- 
ently continuing. 

There are, as I have pointed out earlier, indications that The 
Ford Foundation has not changed its spots. But there are signs, on 
the other hand, which give hope that it may eventually come to 
measure up to its grave responsibility. One can only hope for the 
best. As an instrument for good, this fantastically large founda- 
tion could be of vast benefit to our people. As one managed with- 
out absolute regard to objectivity, it can represent a horrible dan- 
ger to our society.* 

♦Since the preparation of the manuscript of this book, and even after it was 
set in type, various announcements have been made by The Ford Foundation 
of new grants and new programs. Some of these announcements are very en- 
couraging. While many of the Foundation's wheels seem to be running in the 
same old grooves, there are some sharp innovations. Particularly encouraging 
aie the indications that the original emphasis on the “cultural lag" theory, 
which largely underlay the Foundation’s statement of purposes adopted in 
1949, is being toned down considerably. Many recent grams seem to show 
that the Foundation no longer intends to be confined by the 1949 corset and 
that it is becoming willing to branch out into deviations from its former 
orthodoxy. I hope I am right in attributing this change to a realization by 
the Trustees that the past performance of the Foundation left much to be 
desired. I hope also that this has been due, partly at least, to the influence of 
Dr. Heald. 




Since the publication o£ the report of the Reece Committee, 
there has been more public criticism of foundations than in all the 
previous history of foundations. Many writers, commentators, and 
other publicists were shocked at what the Reece Committee found. 
A hard core remains, consisting of those “liberals” who cannot see 
anything wrong in the use of public trust funds to accomplish 
“liberal” political ends. There is a third group, inclined at first to 
take the revelations of the Reece Committee with a grain of salt, 
which has had its eyes opened by the blunders of the Ford Foun- 
dation's fatuous child, The Fund for the Republic. This should 
gratify Congressman Reece, the David who had the courage to 
face the foundation Goliaths and their serried ranks of defenders. 

Large foundations such as Rockefeller and Carnegie have con- 
tributed greatly (and often spectacularly) to the public welfare 
through their work in medicine, public health, and other useful 
fields; a list of their magnificent accomplishments, such as the es- 
tablishment of the Carnegie libraries and the virtual wiping out of 
several virulent diseases through Rockefeller-supported research, 
would be very long indeed. But the wide and rightful publicity 
given to these great public benefits have tended to dull public 
sensitiveness to other developments in the foundation world which 
have not been benign. These unpleasant developments could not 
easily have been exposed without such an inquiry as the Reece 
Committee conducted. 


Only a small part of the foundation story has been told. The 
Reece Committee strongly urged a continuance, or a resumption, 
of its inquiry. It advocated “the most complete possible airing of 
criticism and the most thorough possible assembling of facts.” It 
concluded that in no other way could “foundation trustees come 
to realize the full degree of their responsibility, nor the extent of 
the dangers which they must avoid to prevent foundation destruc- 

A continued Congressional investigation has been urged by reso- 
lutions of the D.A.R., the American Legion, and other patriotic or- 
ganizations. Such a continued investigation is bitterly opposed by 
most foundation professionals. They consider such organizations 
as the American Legion “anti-intellectual.” Its resolutions only 
prove to the “liberal £lite” of the foundation world that they must 
increase their efforts to lead the American people into a better way 
of life. 

The Rockefeller Foundation, for one, apparently intends to do 
just that, if statements by its president, Mr. Dean Rusk, are any in- 
dication. In an address at New York University, the president of 
The Rockefeller Foundation appears to have made his position 
clear. The New York Times of May 22, 1955, commented edi- 
torially on this address as follows: 

It is refreshing to be told that, in spite of Representative 
B. Carroll Reece’s jitters about such matters, American foun- 
dations are going to deal increasingly with “controversial” 
issues — especially when this opinion is expressed by those 
who know most about foundation activities. Both Dean 
Rusk, President of the Rockefeller Foundation, and F. Em- 
erson Andrews, author of authoritative studies in this field, f 
said as much at the conference on the problems of the chari- 
table foundations held at New York University last week. 

You have to understand the jargon of major foundation profes- 
sionals like Mr. Rusk to know what they are talking about. The 

• Sec the Committee’s recommendations, Appendix A of this book, 
f Mr. Andrews is an executive of the Russell Sage Foundation, 


term “controversial/ as I have earlier indicated, does not imply 
the fair presentation of two sides of an issue. What is meant is the 
presentation of one side of a controversy, and one side only — the 
“liberal” side. As The New York Herald Tribune reported another 
speech by Mr. Rusk (this time in Pasadena, in June 1955), he 
said that The Rockefeller Foundation would continue “to support 
vigorously a program of free and responsible scholarships.” This 
promise would have been encouraging if the word "continue” had 
not appeared in this news report. The Rockefeller Foundation, 
when operating in the social sciences, in education, and in foreign 
affairs, has not always shown a disposition to promote either 
“free” or “responsible” scholarship. Its support of The Institute of 
Pacific Relations and some of the worst characters in its dramatis 
personae is but one case in point; as is its support of the “historical 

The same editorial in The New York Times which lauded Mr. 
Rusk and Mr. Andrews for stating that foundations would in- 
crease their support of “controversial issues” gave a clue to what 
foundation executives meant by this term. It praised The Fund for 
the Republic, which it selected for mention as an example of how 
right Messrs. Rusk and Andrews were in predicting a general in- 
crease in foundation support of “controversial issues.” If the Fund 
for the Republic typifies what we are to be in for, then action by 
the Congress to protect the people against the misuse of founda- 
tion funds is sorely needed. 

Happily, the work of the Congressional investigations has not 
failed to influence foundations. There are indications that some of 
them have begun to practice greater caution in their operations. 
The gigantic gifts of The Ford Foundation to colleges and other 
institutions in 1955, 1956, and 1957 evidenced a new policy of di- 
rect support of education with no strings attached. The support of 
the Kinsey studies by The Rockefeller Foundation ended after the 
Reece Committee had illuminated the public regarding the origin 
of the funds used for this project. The Social Science Research 
Council has come out, in a recent report, for greater support of the 
unattached, lone researcher. The Rockefeller Foundation has 


somewhat reorganized its administrative structure; and substan- 
tial changes of personnel have taken place in The Ford Founda- 
tion. Signs such as these are encouraging. 


In my initial report on proposed procedure to the Reece Com- 
mittee* I expressed the opinion that no Congressional action 
should be taken of a legislative nature unless it were unavoidable. 
The Committee report concurred, I have not changed my position. 
Much is tragically wrong with the way some of the foundations 
have operated, much that has heavily damaged our society and 
can continue to injure us. But there is hope that reform can come 
about from within the erring foundations. I shall not, therefore, 
conclude with any discussion of what legislative measures might 
be considered in order to prevent further injury to our society, but 
rather with what measures might be taken by trustees of founda- 
tions in order to correct the unhappy situation from within and 
thus forestall the otherwise inevitable, restrictive legislation. 

1. It seems to me clear that no one should permit himself to be 
a mere figurehead trustee of a great foundation. How much time 
or application may be necessary for the proper discharge of a trus- 
tee’s duty to the public depends on the size of the organization 
and the complexity of its structure and of its program. Whatever 
the answer is, it should be faced squarely. 

2. The alternative to resignation, if the trustees find themselves 
unable to contribute the time and attention which duty to the pub- 
lic requires, is to simplify the program of the foundation to the 
point that trustees can adequately discharge their duty directly 
and without delegating their most essential functions to subordi- 
nates or to other distributing organizations. 

3. Unless the trustee is certain that he reasonably understands 
the ramifications, intricacies, and implications of a proposed, de- 
signed grant, it would seem improper for him to acquiesce in it. 
The preferable alternative would be to make a grant direct to an 
existing operating institution of recognized character, of the type 

• Sec Appendix C. 


of a college, university, hospital, or church, leaving the focusing 
and designing of the project to it. 

4. Trustees of foundations should avoid any situations involv- 
ing a conflict of interest They should not serve on granting and 
receiving boards of tax-exempt organizations simultaneously. 
They should also insist on their employed executives exercising 
similar cautions. 

5. The avoidance of multiple trusteeships seems highly desira- 
ble, to eliminate a concentration of power through interlocks. 

6. The practice of so unreasonably favoring a few of the large 
universities with research grants should be abandoned. The justi- 
fication given for this favoritism, that the best men and the best 
equipment are to be found at these institutions, is not wholly true. 
Much research requires no equipment whatsoever; and all the best 
brains in academic life are not to be found in the great universi- 
ties. Moreover, more widespread research grants, in themselves, 
would tend to widen the intellectual field, enable smaller institu- 
tions (and men in them) to attain greater stature and reputation 
and contribute more heavily to the development of our intellec- 
tual and practical life. 

7. Trustees of those foundations like The Ford Foundation 
which have excluded themselves substantially from the natural 
sciences might reconsider whether this decision has been wise. At 
the 1956 annual dinner of The Research Corporation, a founda- 
tion devoted to the development of natural science, an address 
was made by Professor Robert Bums Woodward, an eminent sci- 
entist of Harvard to whom the foundation’s annual award had 
been presented. Dr. Joseph W. Barker, the president of the foun- 
dation, had previously made a plea for greater support of scientific 
studies and for the crying need to develop science teachers in or- 
der to produce more scientists, so badly needed. This plea was 
echoed and amplified by Professor Woodward. 

Whenever foundation apologists seek to defend the founda- 
tions against criticism, they point invariably to the great things 
which foundations have done for our country. These great things 


have indeed been done, and the foundations responsible for 
them (some large, like the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations, 
and some smaller, like The Research Corporation and many oth- 
ers) are almost invariably in the fields of natural science, medi- 
cine, and public health, and some in the humanities. When major 
foundation accomplishments are listed, how many fall within the 
so-called “social sciences”? Very few, indeed! Is the theory 
sound, then, that because enough is being done in true science 
fields, foundations should "risk” their capital and income pre- 
dominantly in “social” directions? Ask Professor Woodward, who 
has synthesized cortisone, quinine, and cholesterol. Ask him what 
he could do with the millions wasted by The Ford Foundation 
and others on useless compilations of statistical material and on 
the drafting and publication of masses of reports on “social” sub- 
jects which will lie buried forever, useful to no one. 

In exposing the crying need for further support of pure science, 
Professor Woodward attacked the ‘'culture-lag” theory, which is 
at the bottom of the policy of some of the major foundations of 
spending so much on organized social-science research. The Ford 
Foundation has been the greatest sinner in this direction. Its initial 
trustees succumbed to pressure by social-science advocates of the 
cultural-lag theory — that we have developed science so rapidly 
that we have not caught up socially. Out of this theory comes the 
idea that organized projects should be financed to make patholog- 
ical studies of our society and of our behavior in order to find 
ways of enabling society to catch up with science. 

This, in a way, is fiddling while Rome bums. I quote from the 
concluding paragraphs of an address made by Admiral Strauss at 
the Sixth Thomas Alva Edison Foundation Institute on “The 
Growing Shortage of Scientists and Engineers” on November 21 
and 22, 1955; 

The extent to which science has become a major factor in 
our living, our environment and our fate, is something now 
apparent to all who will examine the facts. Our position of 


eminence and influence in the world has been due to the 
prudent and vigorous applications of technology to the de- 
velopment of our resources and our potential. 

# # # 

If we value these possessions which have made for our emi- 
nence and influence, we must be prepared to defend them. 
Our greatest possession — freedom — is itself partly the prod- 
uct of science, since it was technology which made slavery un- 
profitable, and under freedom and only under freedom all 
our other treasures flourish. 

It is a paradox that we should find ourselves at this point 
in history suddenly poorer in the very means by which our 
greatness was achieved. 

This is the cold war of the classrooms. 

In five years our lead in the training of scientists and engi- 
neers may be wiped out, and in ten years we could be hope- 
lessly outstripped. Unless immediate steps are taken to cor- 
rect it, a situation, already dangerous, within less than a 
decade could become disastrous. 

It may well turn out that The Ford Foundation and the other 
foundation followers of the cultural-lag theory have made an ir- 
retrievable error in not recognizing that what we face is not a cul- 
tural but a scientific lag. 


I do not propose that foundations should not support any social- 
science research. I do propose that they should abandon almost 
all of the vastly expensive, directed group-research procedures 
which have been so characteristic of recent foundation operations 
and have been so ridiculed by even warm friends of the founda- 
tions. The individual social-science researcher should receive sup- 
port for his own selected project. No group-research project would 
have produced an Einstein. No group social-science research has 
yet produced anything of monumental significance; but individ- 


ual social scientists have produced, and ever will produce, much 
of great value to our society if pennittcd to go their own selected 

The saving in abandoning those group-research projects which 
have been so dear to the hearts of the executives of the foundation 
combine would make available tens or hundreds of millions whicli 
could be used to advance us in pure and applied science, in medi- 
cine, and in public health, with ever greater speed. Nor do I mean 
that the humanities should be neglected. Attention to the humani- 
ties offers far more hope of preventing or curing any '‘cultural lag' 
than any combination of group-research projects in the social sci- 

Some of the largest foundations have virtually abandoned the 
support of existing educational and other types of operating insti- 
tutions on the theory that the government is now spending so 
much money on direct support that private funds can be better 
used elsewhere. This is a most regrettable position for foundation 
trustees to take. It may well have behind it the conviction of some 
of the most leftward-thinking foundation professionals that such 
institutions should be supported, and therefore controlled, by the 
state — an aspect of the paternal theory of government. It seems es- 
sential to our social system, however, that there be private institu- 
tions which can remain wholly outside any government control. 

The fact is that private educational institutions have been des- 
perately in need of funds. Hospitals and other social institutions so 
necessary to human comfort need money badly. The partial 
change of plan in The Ford Foundation which resulted in heavy 
grants to such institutions in 1955, 1956, and 1957 deserves the 
highest praise, and offers an example which other foundations 
might well emulate. 

One of the admirable characteristics of The Rosenwald Fund 
was that it was to be expended and not carried oil in perpetuity. 
Perhaps perpetuity should be proscribed by law except in certain 
specific instances. At any rate, where trustees have the power to 
expend their capital, should they not consider carefully whether 


it might not be better to allocate it gradually to institutions such as 
universities, which can so well employ it, rather than to carry on 
forever and spend only the income? 

What is most important for the trustees of most of the major 
foundations to understand is that they have lent themselves to the 
virtual suppression of freedom of inquiry and freedom of expres- 
sion in the social-science areas. There is no blinking the facts. 
The “liberal” academician has a relatively easy time, and the con- 
servative a very difficult one, getting a grant from one of these or- 
ganizations. True, a conservative academician may still write as 
he pleases and speak as he pleases, but research costs money; the 
preparation and publication of written works costs money; and 
professors usually are poor men. If “liberals” are heavily sub- 
sidized, and subsidization is denied their opposite numbers, a 
form of suppression occurs which no one can justify in a public 

Were this situation reversed, were the foundations in question 
to favor conservatives and to exclude “liberals,” the Americans for 
Democratic Action, the American Civil Liberties Union, the prop- 
aganda agencies of organized labor, the “liberal” press, the “lib- 
eral” publishing industry in general would speak up in no uncer- 
tain terms. These are silent now. 

As I have said earlier, this book is no plea to convert the “liberal” 
preponderance within major foundations and their associated or- 
ganizations into a “conservative” preponderance. It is a plea to 
foundation trustees to make certain that the organizations they 
manage operate with complete political disinterest. The privilege 
of tax exemption is justified whenever a foundation confines itself 
to truly educational, scientific, or other nonpolitical activities. 
When it reaches clearly into politics, the tax exemption is not 
justified. There is a borderline, very difficult to delineate, of 
course, in which there is uncertainty. This uncertainty does not 
necessarily mean that inquiries and action even in these border 
fields are inadvisable. But it suggests greater caution. It calls for 
wisdom. It calls for the perspicacity and willingness to avoid a 


hortatory and partisan advocacy of political goals and to stick to 
an objective presentation of facts, figures and ideas. 

If the foundation is merely a granting foundation, confining it- 
self to institutional grantees and making no attempt to say what 
the donee institutions are to use the grants for, it would make lit- 
tle difference what the political complexion of its executives might 
be. Or if the foundation confines itself to areas of activity in which 
political connotations are absent, it would be of little consequence 
whether its executives were predominantly conservatives or radi- 
cals. Where, however, the foundation determines the lines of in- 
quiry to which its funds are to be applied and these touch social 
areas in which political predilection could play a part, then it be- 
comes of the greatest importance for the trustees to assure them- 
selves that the executives they employ act without political bias. 

This requires extraordinary alertness. It also requires a careful 
scrutiny of the foundation's employees to make sure that there is at 
least a balance of political predilection, set up in such a way as to 
create an effective objectivity of result. This is not merely a matter 
of balance in numbers. One or two Communists in strategic posts 
in a cabinet have been able to pave the way for the absorption of 
a nation into communism. One or two political-minded founda- 
tion executives, placed in strategic posts within the organization, 
can turn it to active and effective political use. 

In his Philanthropic Foundations ,* Mr. E. Emerson Andrews 
suggests that foundations should 

(i) before voting a grant, make certain of the integrity and 
competence of the persons involved, the responsibility of the 
organization, and the worth of the project; (2) after voting 
the grant, make no attempt to influence appointments or in- 
ternal policy of the organization, avoid membership on its 
board, and give counsel only if asked; (3) when requesting 
financial and progress report, avoid any suspicion of control 
over the nature of findings or their distribution. 

# p. sag. 


He adds: 

In the unlikely case of complete misapplication of funds or 
other malfeasance, discontinuance of further payments or ac- 
tion for recovery is warranted. 

With all this I agree, but it does not finish the story of the duty 
of trustees in connection with grants. I believe it to be the duty of 
trustees to examine the product to determine whether it has (a) 
been produced with bias, and (b) has materially affected our 
society, or could so affect it. The purpose would be to decide 
whether corrective action is indicated. Such action might take the 
form of a public repudiation of the product in some instances — a 
broadcast notice to the public that the foundation which made it 
possible does not support what its money misproduced. In most 
instances corrective relief would call for the financing of a coun- 
terproject to create at least a balance. 

Had The Carnegie Corporation, for instance, adopted such a 
procedure in the case of the report of the Commission on Social 
Studies of The American Historical Association, much damage to 
our educational system could have been avoided. These com- 
ments apply, clearly enough, wherever the subject matter touches 

Mr. Andrews repeats his position regarding responsibility in an 
introduction to The Public Accountability of Foundations and 
Charitable Trusts* by Eleanor Taylor. He speaks of the inade- 
quacies of much foundation reporting, expresses concern over the 
possibility of restrictive legislation which might harm all founda- 
tions, and affirms that it is “wholly proper that the foundation or 
trust should be held accountable for its stewardship. 0 However, 
along with the author of the book, he used the term “accountabil- 
ity” strictly in a financial sense. He says: “Society should have the 
means of protecting itself against the theft, squandering, or unrea- 
sonable withholding of the promised” benefits intended for the 
general welfare. He says: “The operations of the exempt organiza- 
tions should be fully and regularly reported with adequate provi- 

# Ruwcli Sage Foundation, 1953. 


sion for review by a public authority possessing power to correct 
abuses. This constitutes accountability." 

But Mr. Andrews does not support any form of "control” other 
than financial auditing. He demands "real freedom” for the givers 
of funds and the administrators who manage them. He deems 
this especially important in the field of the social sciences. He is 
all for the "venture-capital” theory, and he wants no "control” 
over the freedom of ventures. What Mr. Andrews, and those who 
think like him, do not see is the logical weakness of their proposed 
distinction between "accountability” (as they define it, limiting it 
virtually to a statement of what they have paid to whom and for 
what projects) and "control.” 

The true measure of "accountability” is not merely proof of 
what they have done with the money entrusted to them. Those to 
whom they have the duty to account surely must have the right to 
know not only how the money was spent, and whether or not some 
of it was dissipated, but also what the theory, objectives, and re- 
sults of the expenditures have been. "Control” could take the form 
of the right of censorship or penalty or remedial relief after the 
act, exercised by governmental authority, of course. But that is not 
part of the concept of “accountability” which I maintain should be 
applied. "Accountability” in its true sense should be to the public, 
the beneficiary of the trust which a foundation admittedly repre- 
sents; and the public has the right to know how the managers and 
operators of a foundation have interpreted their trust duty. 

Accountability for financial propriety alone is not enough to 
protect the public against abuses of substantive power. There is 
need for a form of accountability which will protect the people in 
the areas of intellectual concern; to insure that nothing has been 
done to curb true academic freedom; to make certain that the free 
competition of ideas has not been impaired; to see that the rights 
of the nonconformist have been protected. 

The foundation needs to look closely at what its financing has 
produced. It needs to explain or expose publicly what motivated 
its selections and to explain also how, in so selecting, it was alert to 
the necessity of preventing bias and of promoting objectivity. It 


needs, further, to renounce publicly that which has turned out 
misbegotten and to announce and take such steps as might rea- 
sonably be necessary, and are feasible, to correct any damage 
which has been done. If this process, which begins to effect true 
public "accountability,” is generally adopted by foundations, no 
movement for government intervention would collect any substan- 
tial support. The very process of self-audit, combined with the 
resultant public accounting, should quickly enough coiTect errors 
of management. 

The foundations which are bent on a public mission should be 
grateful for any public scrutiny of their deeds and of the signifi- 
cance of their actions. In the absence of controlling authority, 
public scrutiny alone can supply them with sound yardsticks of 
performance. It is my hope that, in the constant adjustment of so- 
cial institutions, to which foundations are as subject as other 
bodies of men, the stimulus of outside criticism will, in the end, 
prove to be a most constructive contribution to their work. 





1. The country is faced with a rapidly increasing birth-rate of foun- 
dations. The compelling motivation behind this rapid increase in 
numbers is tax planning rather than “charity.” The possibility exists 
that a large part of American industry may eventually come into the 
hands of foundations. This may perpetuate control of individual en- 
terprises in a way not contemplated by existing legislation, in the 
hands of closed groups, perhaps controlled in turn by families. Be- 
cause of the tax exemption granted them, and because they must be 
dedicated to public purposes, the foundations are public trusts, ad- 
ministering funds of which the public is the equitable owner. How- 
ever, under the present law there is little implementation of this re- 
sponsibility to the general welfare; the foundations administer their 
capital and income with the widest freedom, bordering at times on 
irresponsibility. Wide freedom is highly desirable, as long as the pub- 
lic dedication is faithfully followed. But, as will be observed later, the 
present laws do not compel such performance. 

The increasing number of foundations presents another problem. 
The Internal Revenue Service is not staffed to adequately scrutinize 
the propriety and legality of the work of this ever-enlarging multitude 
of foundations. 

2. Foundations are clearly desirable when operating in the natural 
sciences and when making direct donations to religious, educational, 



scientific, and other institutional donees. However, when their activi- 
ties spread into the field of the so-called “social sciences” or into other 
areas in which our basic moral, social, economic, and governmental 
principles can be vitally affected, the public should be alerted to these 
activities and be made aware of the impact of foundation influence on 
our accepted way of life. 

3. The power of the individual large foundation is enormous. It 
can exercise various forms of patronage which carry with them ele- 
ments of thought control. It can exert immense influence on educa- 
tional institutions, upon the educational processes, and upon educa- 
tors. It is capable of invisible coercion through the power of its purse. 
It can materially predetermine the development of social and political 
concepts and courses of action through the process of granting and 
withholding foundation awards upon a selective basis, and by design- 
ing and promulgating projects which propel researchers in selected 
directions. It can play a powerful part in the determination of aca- 
demic opinion, and, through this thought leadership, materially in- 
fluence public opinion. 

4. This power to influence national policy is amplified tremen- 
dously when foundations act in concert. There is such a concentration 
of foundation power in the United States, operating in the social sci- 
ences and education. It consists basically of a group of major founda- 
tions, representing a gigantic aggregate of capital and income. There 
is no conclusive evidence that this interlock, this concentration of 
power, having some of the characteristics of an intellectual cartel, 
came into being as the result of an over-all, conscious plan. Never- 
theless, it exists. It operates in part through certain intermediary or- 
ganizations supported by the foundations. It has ramifications in 
almost every phase of research and education, in communications and 
even in government. Such a concentration of power is highly unde- 
sirable, whether the net result of its operations is benign or not. 

5. Because foundation funds are public funds, the trustees of these 
organizations must conscientiously exercise the highest degree of fidu- 
ciary responsibility. Under the system of operation common to most 
large foundations this fiduciary responsibility has been largely abdi- 
cated, and in two ways. First, in fact if not in theory, the trustees 
have all too frequently passed solely upon general plans and left the 
detailed administration of donations (and the consequent selection 
of projects and grantees) to professional employees. Second, these trus- 


tecs have all too often delegated much of their authority and function 
to intermediary organizations. 

6. A professional class of administrators of foundation funds has 
emerged, intent upon creating and maintaining personal prestige and 
independence of action, and upon preserving its position and emolu- 
ments, This informal “guild” has already fallen into many of the vices 
of a bureaucratic system, involving vast opportunities for selective 
patronage, preference and privilege. It has already come to exercise a 
very extensive, practical control over most research in the social sci- 
ences, much of our educational process, and a good part of govern- 
ment administration in these and related fields. The aggregate 
thought-control power of this foundation and foundation-supported 
bureaucracy can hardly be exaggerated. A system has thus arisen 
(without its significance being realized by foundation trustees) which 
gives enormous power to a relatively small group of individuals, hav- 
ing at their virtual command, huge sums in public trust funds. It is a 
system which is antithetical to American principles. 

7. The far-reaching power of the large foundations and of the inter- 
lock, has so influenced the press, the radio, and even the government 
that it has become extremely difficult for objective criticism of founda- 
tion practices to get into news channels without having first been dis- 
torted, slanted, discredited, and at times ridiculed. Nothing short of an 
unhampered Congressional investigation could hope to bring out the 
vital facts; and the pressure against Congressional investigation has 
been almost incredible. As indicated by their arrogance in dealing 
with this Committee, the major foundations and their associated inter- 
mediary organizations have intrenched themselves behind a totality of 
power which presumes to place them beyond serious criticism and at- 

8. Research in the social sciences plays a key part in the evolution 
of our society. Such research is now almost wholly in the control of the 
professional employees of the large foundations and their obedient 
satellites. Even the great sums allotted by the Federal government for 
social science research have come into the virtual control of this pro- 
fessional group. 

g. This power team has promoted a great excess of empirical re- 
search, as contrasted with theoretical research. It has promoted what 
has been called an irresponsible “fact finding mania.” It is true that a 
balanced empirical approach is essential to sound investigation. But 


It is equally true that if it is not sufficiently balanced and guided by 
the theoretical approach, it leads all too frequently to what has been 
termed “scientism” or fake science, seriously endangering our society 
upon subsequent general acceptance as “scientific” fact. It is not the 
part of Congress to dictate methods of research, but an alertness by 
foundation trustees to the dangers of supporting unbalanced and un- 
scientific research is dearly indicated. 

10. Associated with the excessive support of the empirical method, 
the concentration of power has tended to support the dangerous “cul- 
tural lag” theory and to promote “moral relativity/ 1 to the detriment 
of our basic moral, religious, and governmental principles. It has 
tended to support the concept of “social engineering” — that “social 
scientists” and they alone are capable of guiding us into better ways 
of living and improved or substituted fundamental prinriples of ac- 

11. Accompanying these directions in research grants, the concen- 
tration has shown a distinct tendency to favor political opinions to the 
left. These foundations and their intermediaries engage extensively in 
political activity, not in the form of direct support of political candi- 
dates or political parties, but in the conscious promotion of carefully 
calculated political concepts. The qualitative and quantitative restric- 
tions of the Federal law are wholly inadequate to prevent this mis-use 
of public trust funds. 

\ 2 , The impact of foundation money upon education has been very 
heavy, largely tending to promote uniformity in approach and method, 
tending to induce the educator to become an agent for social change 
and a propagandist for the development of our society in the direction 
of some form of collectivism. Foundations have supported text books 
(and books intended for inclusion in collateral reading lists) which 
are destructive of our basic governmental and social principles and 
highly critical of some of our cherished institutions, 

xg. In the international field, foundations, and an interlock among 
some of them and certain intermediary organizations, have exercised a 
strong effect upon our foreign policy and upon public education in 
things international. This has been accomplished by vast propaganda, 
by supplying executives and advisers to government and by control- 
ling much research in this area through the power of the purse. The net 
result of these combined efforts has been to promote “international- 
ism” in a particular sense — a form directed toward “world govern- 


ment M and a derogation of American "nationalism.” Foundations 
have supported a conscious distortion of history, propagandized 
blindly for the United Nations as the hope of the world, supported 
that organization's agencies to an extent beyond general public ac- 
ceptance, and leaned toward a generally "leftist” approach to interna- 
tional problems. 

14. With several tragically outstanding exceptions, such as The In- 
stitute of Pacific Relations , foundations have not directly supported 
organizations which, in turn, operated to support Communism. How- 
ever, some of the larger foundations have directly supported "sub- 
version” in the true meaning of that term, namely, the process of un- 
dermining some of our vitally protective concepts and principles. 
They have actively supported attacks upon our social and govern- 
mental system and financed the promotion of socialism and collectivist 



A number of foundations have complained bitterly about a "second” 
investigation, bemoaning the inconvenience of repeated inquiries. 
Whatever the inconvenience, this Committee urgently recommends a 
continued inquiry. The fullest possible study is necessary adequately 
to expose certain weaknesses and errors of operation, the failure to 
recognize which might, some day, result in a growing movement to 
destroy the foundation as an institution by wholly denying it tax ex- 

There are many today who believe that foundations should not be 
permitted. Among them are one group of advocates of "state plan- 
ning,” who take the position that all the functions now performed by 
foundations should be in government control; that foundations pre- 
vent the over-all coordinated planning in Washington which, they say, 
should be our goal. Others feel that the privilege of giving away the 
public's money (tax-exempt money) should not be subject to the idio- 
syncrasy of the donor or the disposition of a self-perpetuating group of 
foundation managers. There are others who resent, on a simple moti- 
vation of human envy, the presence of great sums of money segregated 
to the directed desires of some person of great wealth. 


None of these points of view are received sympathetically by this 
Committee . 

There is another group, however, which says that nothing would be 
lost by abolishing foundations, except factors which are undesirable 
or unpleasant. That is, they say, a donor could still make all the 
charitable donations he wished, by conferring his benefactions on ex- 
isting institutions such as colleges and universities, hospitals, churches, 
etc. He could still get the same tax benefit for himself and for his es- 
tate, and save the equity control of a business for his family through 
such transfers. He could give himself the same egotistical satisfaction, 
if that is important to him, by attaching his name to a fund. He 
could even designate a purpose for which a recipient college, for ex- 
ample, must use his grant. He could even attach reasonable condi- 
tions and restrictions to his gifts. 

All that would thus be lost by abolishing foundations, say these 
critics, would be (1) the inability to use a foundation itself as a vehi- 
cle for maintaining control or partial control of a business and (2) 
the inability to insist upon the management of the fund through fam- 
ily members or other self-perpetuating, designated persons. We would 
thus stiil have the equivalent of foundations, but they would be ad- 
ministered by universities and other responsible institutions instead of 
by those appointed by a miscellaneously selected board of private 
trustees and by “clearing houses/' 

This argument cannot be lightly dismissed. Nor can it be defeated 
by the insistence that foundation funds are most valuable as “risk 
capital/' If the risk capital theory is sound, would it not be a safer 
"risk" to society to have such funds administered by responsible uni- 
versity trustees? The delineation of scope of purpose in a deed of gift 
could very easily warrant the taking of reasonable “risks." 

While we recognize the weight of these arguments , we do not sup- 
port the proposal that foundations be abolished or refused Federal 
tax exemption. One reason is that foundations are generally creatures 
of state law and it does not seem to us that the Federal government 
should, through the power of its taxing arm, virtually prevent the 
states from retaining the foundation as a permissible institution if 
they wish to. 

Another reason is that some foundations have accomplished so much 
that is good. Institutions which are capable of doing for the American 
people the magnificent things which foundations have been responsi- 


ble for, in medicine, public health and elsewhere, indicate that they 
should be saved if they can be. But the foundations cannot rest on 
their beneficial accomplishments alone. Not only must their balance 
sheets show a preponderance of good — that preponderance must be 
truly overwhelming. That they have improved the public health, for 
example, cannot offset that they have permitted themselves to be used 
to undermine our society and some of our most precious basic con- 
cepts and principles. 

If they are to be permitted to continue and to wield the tremendous 
power which they now exercise, it must be upon the basis of complete 
public acceptance — because they will have committed mere venial 
sins and not mortal ones. For this reason we so strongly advocate the 
most complete possible airing of criticism and the most thorough pos- 
sible assembling of facts. In no other way can foundation trustees 
come to realize the full degree of their responsibility, nor the extent 
of the dangers which they must avoid to prevent foundation destruc- 


Various suggestions have been made as to the proper or most ad- 
visable vehicle for a continued inquiry. One is that a permanent sub- 
committee of Ways and Means be created to complete the investiga- 
tion and to act as a permanent "watch-dog.” Another is that the 
whole problem be turned over to the Joint Committee on Internal 
Revenue Taxation. A third is that something in the nature of a Brit- 
ish "royal commission" be created. Whatever the means used, we urge 
that the investigation be retained under the control of the legislative 
branch of the government, where it belongs. 

How should that continued inquiry be conducted? Wc have pointed 
out that such an inquiry is primarily a matter of laborious research. 
Facts are best secured by this method, rather than through the exami- 
nation and cross-examination of a parade of witnesses. 

Some foundation spokesmen have alluded to "Committee witnesses’* 
and "foundation witnesses" in connection with the current investiga- 
tion. There has been no such division of witnesses. All who came, or 
were to come, before us were, or were to be, "Committee witnesses." 
What these foundation spokesmen have attempted to do is give this 
proceeding the character of a trial, rather than an investigation. It has 
been no trial, and could not be. 


There has been a growing insistence on the part of some groups of 
extreme "liberals” that Congressional investigations be changed in 
character to approach very closely to trial practice. Such suggestions 
fly in the very face of the nature of Congressional investigations and 
seek to undermine the independence of the legislative arm of the gov- 
ernment by depriving it of the right to unhampered inquiry. 

The use of a trial method, with complaint, answer, reply, rebuttal, 
surrebuttal, etc., as to each issue, would mean utter confusion and 
make of each investigation an endless "circus.” 

This Committee has been much maligned, in part by the press and 
by foundation spokesmen, because it first placed critical witnesses on 
the stand. This was done, with the unanimous approval of the full 
Committee, in order to be utterly fair to the foundations by letting 
them know, in advance of their own expected appearances, the main 
lines of inquiry which were to be followed. This was explained re- 
peatedly by the Chairman and by Counsel, and appears in the record 
again and again. In the face of these statements foundation spokes- 
men, echoed by parts of the press inimical to this investigation for 
whatever reasons of their own, have cried "unfair I” 

The insistence on something close to trial practice is illustrated by a 
telegram from The Rockefeller Foundation to the Committee which 

"We must assume that the Committee's decision [to discontinue the 
hearings] means that it will not submit a report to the Congress con- 
taining any material adverse to our foundation on which we are not 
fully heard." (. Hearings , p. 10G2.) 

This statement is made as though this condition were advanced as a 
matter of right. We reject it emphatically. We are not "trying” the 
foundations; we are investigating them. To require us, in advance of a 
report, to submit to a foundation every piece of evidence or comment 
which our staff may have collected would be an absurdity, hampering 
a committee such as this to the point of destroying its effectiveness. 

The Rockefeller Foundation statement goes even further than de- 
manding to see every piece of material which might be used in criti- 
cism of it. It says: "We suggest that the Committee insure this [refrain- 
ing from unfairly injuring the foundations] by affording the founda- 
tions an opportunity to be heard on the draft of any report which the 


Committee proposes to submit.’ 1 That is both intolerable arrogance 
and an absurdity. Perhaps this will be added to the list of tilings 
which the advanced “liberals” are asking of Congressional procedure 
— that no Congressional committee be permitted to file any report 
until all persons interested have had an opportunity to see it in draft 
and comment upon it to the committee! 

Such procedure, aside from its interference with the independence 
of Congress, would involve the endless protraction of investigations, 
In our case, for example, there are some seven thousand foundations. 
Does Mr. Rusk, who signed tire Rockefeller statement, believe that 
only The Rockefeller Foundation should have the right of examina- 
tion? Or does lie believe all foundations should have that right? Does 
he suggest they be called in one by one, or all in a group? The impos- 
sibility of his suggestion is obvious enough. And how about the cost? 
We have heard no foundation voice raised to assist this Committee in 
securing adequate financing. 


United States News and World Report of October 22, 1954* page 
104, contains excerpts from an article in Harper's Magazine for Febru- 
ary, 1936, concerning Congressional investigations, written by Su- 
preme Court Justice Hugo L. Black. Justice Black describes how 
pressure against an investigation commences before the investigation 
even begins. 

At the first suggestion of an investigation the ever-busy, cease- 
lessly vigilant Washington lobby sounds the alarm/' 

The instant a "resolution is offered, or even rumored, the call to arms 
is sounded by the interest to be investigated/' 

"High-priced political lawyers swarm into the Capitol. Lobby- 
ists descend upon members. Telegrams of protest come from citi- 
zens back home protesting against the suggested infamy.” 

Certain newspapers can generally be depended upon to raise a cry 
against the proposed investigation, The opposition does not end when 
a resolution passes; the next step is to try to influence appointments 
to the Committee. Finally, pressure is put upon the controlling legis- 
lative Committee to restrict the activities of the investigating commit- 
tee by limiting its funds, 


Justice Black's article is worth reading. It goes on to describe the 
difficulties which confront Congressional investigations when they do 
get under way. 

Unfortunately this Committee concludes that some of the founda- 
tions have followed the traditional course which Justice Black de- 
scribed as taken by "the interest to be investigated." Nor have we been 
impressed with the general willingness of foundations to submit their 
performance to public scrutiny. 

This Committee can judge the attitude only of those foundations 
with which it has had intimate contact. These, as well as the ''clearing 
house" organizations, have been fully cooperative in supplying in- 
formation. Both groups, however, have demonstrated an intolerance 
toward criticism. This unwillingness even to consider that they might, 
in any respect, be guilty of serious error, we find distressing and dis- 
couraging. We can only conclude that it emanates from a sense of 
power and security, even vis-a-vis the Congress. Some of the founda- 
tions have gone so far as to imply that it is an injustice for Congress to 
investigate any complaint against them. 

They have filled their statements with cliche material regarding the 
desirability of "free speech," and "freedom of thought," and "aca- 
demic freedom" as though they had a monopoly on the defense of free- 
dom and there were serious danger that Congress might unfairly cur- 
tail it. A form of arrogance and a pretension to superiority leads them 
to believe that critics must, per se, be wrong. Foundations are sacred 
cows. The men who run them are above being questioned. This 
Committee, continues their general attitude, is bent upon the destruc- 
tion of the sacred right of foundations to do as they please; it is full 
of malice; its staff is manned with incompetents who have called in 
incompetents as witnesses; no one who criticizes a foundation could be 

One gathers the impression from some of the Filed statements that 
the foundation officers who have signed them believe that they have a 
vested and inalienable right to do as they please, and that it is an 
outrage that a Congressional Committee should dare to question any 
of their actions. The fact is that they have a limited privilege — limited 
by what the public may determine is for its own good; and the public, 
in this sense, is represented by the Congress. 

This Committee has even been attacked by foundations which it 
has not investigated in any detail. Several such attacks, for example, 


have been launched by the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, 
one appearing in its October, 1954, Bulletin , which begins by an- 
nouncing — before the completion of our investigation, that it has 
failed. The lengthy article refers to the Committee members and staff 
as "actors” in a "charade," and refers to the witnesses called by the 
Committee as "a strange group." It is replete with vituperation and 
prejudges in vicious manner before the publishing of a report upon 
which alone any final judgment of this Committee's work could be 
made. The concluding sentence of the article is: 

"Its failure as a Congressional investigation is a great victory 
for the American people,” 

There can be no possible justification for such an attack by a tax ex- 
empt organization in the course of a Congressional investigation. 

This Committee is quite conscious of the possibility that it may itself 
have erred in some facts or in some judgments. Unlike some of the 
foundation-supported social scientists and some of the foundation ex- 
ecutives (to judge them from their own statements) we do npt con- 
sider ourselves Olympian. It is partly for this reason that we strongly 
recommend a completion of the project of an investigation of founda- 
tions — so that all possible facts in the criticized areas may be adduced 
which might be favorable to them. Based on an incomplete inquiry, all 
final conclusions are subject to possible revision. 

On the other hand, we are quite shocked that some of the founda- 
tions have presumed to imply malice and an intention by this Com- 
mittee to do a biased and prejudiced job. We should like to print in 
full the initial report prepared by Counsel to the Committee under 
date of October 23, 1953, outlining his proposals for the conduct of 
the work. It is a measured, objective and thoroughly unprejudiced 
document running to 22 pages, the result of extremely careful 
thought; it formed the basis upon which the Committee built its opera- 
tions. We shall quote merely part of it to indicate the attitude which 
this Committee has had in its work.* 

" Control as a Basic Problem . This brings us to the basic con- 
trol problem. We would assume that the Committee would be 
disposed to a minimum of Federal control. The rights, duties 
and responsibilities of foundations are, in our opinion, primarily 

• See Appendix C. 


matters of state law with which the Federal government should 
not interfere unless grounds of national welfare, strong enough to 
induce an application of a broad Federal constitutional theory. 
Should appear. For the moment, then, the only available mech- 
anism of control available to the Congress is the tax law. Con- 
gress has the dear right to place reasonable conditions upon the 
privilege of tax exemption. It has done so, as to income tax, gift 
tax and estate tax. If amendments to these tax laws come to 
appear desirable it is the province of the Committee on Ways 
and Means, as we understand it, to consider such amendments. 
We conceive our function in part to be to produce the facts 
upon which that Committee may, if it chooses, act further. We 
deem it within our province to state the facts which have ap- 
peared, collate them, and suggest areas of consideration for Ways 
and Means if the Committee finds this desirable. 

“If acute or chronic foundation ailments should appear, the 
remedies may not, in every case, be through legislation. A dis- 
closure of the ailments may, to some extent, induce reform 
within the ailing foundation itself. And the very statement of 
the facts may induce the public to take an interest of a nature 
to bring about reform through the force of public opinion ” 

This measured language does not indicate an intention to “rail- 
road” the foundations or to impose restrictions on them which might, 
as some of the foundations purport to fear, destroy their usefulness. 
To quote once more from this initial and guiding report of Counsel: 

“Starting with the premise that foundations are basically de- 
sirable, excessive regulation, which would deprive them virtually 
of all freedom, might well destroy their character, their useful- 
ness and their desirability. Therefore, regulatory measures should 
be approached with great caution, We are not prepared at this 
time even to suggest that further regulation is needed. It seems 
essential to us that as scientific a collection and integration of 
facts as possible be accomplished before anyone, whether in this 
Committee or outside, arrives at any precise conclusions/ 1 

This is the spirit in which this Committee started its work and in 
which it has continued through the preparation of this report . 



We shall not burden this already lengthy report with a repetition of 
all the various observations, conclusions and recommendations stated 
in its course. Because of the incompleteness of the inquiry, we have 
been disinclined to arrive at many final and fixed recommendations. 
We shall, however, discuss briefly some features of foundation opera- 
tion which seem to require additional or fresh comment, 


Wherever suggestions are made herein for possible changes in the 
tax laws, we are mindful of the superior jurisdiction of the Commit- 
tee on Ways and Means and respectfully offer such suggestions to that 
Committee for its consideration, 


This Committee has never swerved from the concept laid out in 
the initial report of Counsel to it that whatever reform of foundation 
procedure is necessary should, if possible, come from within the 
foundations themselves. We are not overly encouraged, from the con- 
tent and import of the statements filed by some of the foundations, 
and their general attitude, that much willingness exists among execu- 
tives of the foundations and of the associated organizations to institute 
any reform whatsoever. A prerequisite to such reform from the inside 
would lie in a recognition that it is needed. If these foundations and 
organizations persist in their attitude that they are sacrosanct, that 
they have not committed and cannot commit any serious errors, and 
that they, therefore, need no reform whatsoever, then Congressional ac- 
tion in various directions seems inevitably necessary, even to the pos- 
sible extent of a complete denial of tax exemption. 


Suggestions have been made that die operating cost of foundations 
is sometimes excessive, resulting in a waste of public funds. There is 
much to this allegation, particularly in the case of heavily staffed foun- 
dations with complex machinery of operation, and those which dou- 
ble overhead by using intermediary organizations to distribute some 


of their funds. There seems to be no reasonable way, however, to con- 
trol such waste through any form of regulation. It is our opinion 
that this is one of the areas in which reform from the inside is the 
only kind possible. We urge foundation trustees to consider it care- 


Special attention might be given to abuses by foundations used for 
the purpose of collecting money from the public. These have been ex- 
tensively investigated in the State of New York and elsewhere, and or- 
ganizations like the National Better Business Bureau can supply 
much data concerning them. The chief complaint against many of 
these organizations is that their costs of operation often far exceed the 
net amount available for distribution to “charities.” Legislation to 
protect the public against abuses of foundations of this type is possi- 
ble, perhaps in the form of a limitation on a percentage of permitted 
overhead. This Committee has not had time, however, to study this 
specific problem nor did it feel it advisable to duplicate any of the 
work done, for example, by the investigation in the State of New 


The evidence indicates that there is a good deal of waste in the selec- 
tion of projects, particularly mass research projects in which large sums 
are expended, and the services of a substantial number of researchers 
employed, when the end to be achieved does not measure favorably 
against the aggregate expenditure of valuable manpower and of 
money. This error seems to us often to relate to an excessive interest 
in empirical research. The services of ten or more researchers might 
be used to assemble "facts” on some narrow subject when the same 
money spent on this piece of mass-fact-production could support those 
ten or more men, each in valuable, independent research. It would 
not be difficult, for example, to find a better use for $250,000 than the 
mass research on the Taiping Rebellion concerning which Professor 
Rowe testified. We urge foundation trustees, who alone can prevent 
such waste, to scrutinize carefully the proposed cnd-objective of any 
suggested research project involving possible waste of manpower and 
public funds. We suggest to them, further, that foundation money is 
precious; that the capacity to distribute it is not a right but a privi- 


lege, a privilege granted by the people— that, therefore, waste should 
be avoided even more strictly than in the use of one's personal funds. 


In order that statistical material of great value may be produced by 
the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and so that special rules might be 
applied to foundations (and “clearing house” organizations) as dis- 
tinguished from the miscellany of organizations included within the 
scope of Section 101 (6) (now 501 [c] [3]) of the Code, we suggest 
that the Committee on Ways and Means consider a division of that 
section into two parts. 


It is the opinion of this Committee that, although complete observa- 
tion of foundation activity by the Internal Revenue Service is impossi- 
ble, the subject is of sufficient social importance to warrant an in- 
crease in the manpower of the pertinent department of the Bureau to 
enable it more closely to watch foundation activity. 


We consider it an absurdity that the public does not have open ac- 
cess to the full reports filed by the foundations and known as Form 
990A. Why any part of the activity or operation of a foundation, a 
public body, should not be open to the public eye, we cannot under- 


Many have urged that a "rule against perpetuities" be applied to 
foundations in the form of an aggregate limit on life of, say, from ten 
to twenty-five years. We strongly support this proposal. It should be 
applied primarily to foundations and other non-institutional organiza- 
tions whose sole or chief function is distributing grants. Some operat- 
ing research organizations might, possibly, be exempted from the rule 
and classed with institutional organizations such as colleges, universi- 
ties, hospitals, churches, etc. And careful study may disclose other 
types of foundations which might be excluded from the proposed limi- 
tation on length of existence. It would not be easy to define these 
classes or to draw the lines of demarcation; but the difficulty of delin- 
eation should not prevent the undertaking. 


Measures to forestall evasion would have to be considered. For ex- 
ample, a foundation, shortly before its duration-expiration, might pass 
its assets to another foundation created for the purpose or having sim- 
ilar objectives and management. There are other problems requiring 
difficult study. But it seems wise to proscribe perpetual foundations of 
the general class. This would minimize the use of the mechanism to 
enable a family to continue control of enterprises ad infinitum ; avoid 
the calcification which sometimes sets in on foundations; and, among 
other desirable objectives, minimize the seriousness of the danger that 
a foundation might, in some future period, pass into die control of 
persons whose objectives differed materially from those which the 
creator of die foundation intended, 


Foundations may not accumulate income "unreasonably” The per- 
tinent provision of the tax law is analogous to Section 102 applying 
to ordinary corporations, and has a sound principle behind it. Yet it 
seems to us to sometimes work out unhappily. Foundations should not 
be overly-pressed to distribute their income, lest they do so casually or 
recklessly. We suggest, therefore, that this rule be changed so that; 

j, a foundation be given a period of two or three years within 
which to distribute each year's income, but that 

2, within diat period, all of that year’s income be paid out, 

If a "rule against perpetuities" were applied, our suggestion might be 
that a foundation be given an even longer period of income accumu* 


With the objective of preventing any accumulations (beyond the 
limits discussed above), we suggest that capital gains be treated as in- 
come. That is, all capital gains realized should be subjected to the 
same rule as to accumulations, as though they were ordinary income. 
Whether or not capital losses should be allowed as an offset for the 
purpose of treating accumulations is debatable. 



Wc have suggested that such foundations require the thorough 
study which we have not been able to give them. We are not in a posi- 
tion to make final recommendations. We do suggest that, while such 
foundations seem entirely desirable; they should be subjected to some 
restrictions which would prevent them from aggregating enormous cap* 
ital funds with which they could (i) exercise powerful control of 
enterprises through investment and (?) come to have a very strong 
impact upon our society. One method might be to treat all donations 
to such foundations as income for the purpose of compelling distribu- 
tions and proscribing accumulations. That is, whatever rule is applied, 
directed at the improper accumulation of income, should be applied 
to a corporation's annual donations as though these were income to 
the foundation* 


It has been suggested that foundations be either compelled or per- 
mitted to incorporate under Federal law. We adopt neither sugges- 
tion. This Committee does not advocate any unnecessary extension of 
Federal jurisdiction. Federal incorporation would have the advantage 
of permitting regulations to be enacted on a broader base than the 
tax law, But we feel that the further centralization of government 
function would be an unhappy invasion of states’ rights. 


This Committee has pointed out that, upon violation by a tax-ex- 
empt organization of the rules of the tax law relating to subversion 
and political activity, the only penalty is the future loss of income tax 
exemption (and the corresponding right of future donors to take tax 
deductions for gifts or bequests). We urgently recommend that means 
be studied by which the initial gift tax and/or estate tax exemption, 
granted upon the creation of the organization, may be withdrawn and 
the tax due collected to the extent of the remaining assets of the or- 
ganization. It impresses us as absurd that, having been guilty, for ex- 
ample, of subversive activity, a foundation whose funds were per- 
mitted to be set aside because of tax exemption, can go right on ex- 
pending its capital for further subversion, 



A sensible alternative to the imposition of the retroactive penalty 
described above, would be the immediate removal of the trustees or 
directors. This is primarily a matter of state law, and the Federal gov- 
ernment could not force such removal. It could, however, we believe, 
provide that the retroactive penalty be assessed unless all the trustees 
or directors forthwith resign and arrangements are made for the elec- 
tion of directors appointed by a court or an agency of the state of in- 
corporation or of the situs of the trust. 


The suggestion has been made that each foundation should be re- 
quired to have, upon its board, or as one of its trustees, a member 
selected by a government agency, perhaps the state government. The 
purpose of the suggestion is that the public would thus have a direct 
representative who could watch the operations of the foundation 
and take whatever action he might deem necessary if he found a viola- 
tion of good practice or of law. The suggestion may have merit; it 
may be well worth the consideration of the Committee on Ways and 


Directed against the calcification which may set in upon a founda- 
tion, the suggestion has been made that a director or trustee be per- 
mitted to sit upon a board for only a reasonably limited number of 
years, after which he would be ineligible for reelection. This sugges- 
tion also seems to have considerable merit, and may be worth the at- 
tention of Ways and Means. 


We urge most strongly upon those who control the great founda- 
tions, in particular, that they fill their boards with men who are will- 
ing to take the time to do a full job of trust administration. This is 
meant as no personal criticism of those many estimable men who sit 
upon foundations boards. We have gone into this matter elsewhere 
in this report. The president of a great corporation cannot possibly 
give to the management of a foundation the time which should be re- 
quired. Many of the weaknesses of foundation management might be 


avoided if the trustees were selected from among men able and will- 
ing to give a large amount of time to their work, 


As it is obvious that the Internal Revenue Service cannot, except at 
prohibitive cost, follow the activities of the individual foundations to 
ascertain whether violations of law exist, this Committee believes that 
some additional method should be established to protect the people 
against a misuse of the public funds which foundation money repre- 
sents. An interesting suggestion has been made, which deserves care- 
ful study, that legal procedure should be available in the Federal 
courts under which a citizen could bring a proceeding to compel the 
Attorney General to take action against a foundation upon a showing, 
to the satisfaction of a Federal judge, that a prima facie or probable 
cause exists. 


The Internal Revenue Code specially taxes “unrelated income” 
and proscribes certain transactions and uses of foundations. Among 
them are the unreasonable accumulation of income and certain pro- 
hibited transactions between the foundation and its creator or other 
closely associated persons and corporations. Within the limitations of 
time and funds faced by this Committee it did not feel warranted to 
enter this area of research which is, in any event, peculiarly the 
province of the Committee on Ways and Means. Doubtless certain 
defects in the existing law covering these areas need attention, but 
these must be left to consideration by the controlling Committee. 


One subject which does need careful consideration by the Congress 
is the use now so frequently made of foundations to control businesses. 
In an early section of this report we alluded to the extent to which 
foundations are being currently created in order to solve estate and 
business planning problems. We mentioned also the possibility that 
so great a percentage of enterprises may, someday, come into the 
hands of foundations that this very factor in itself may oblige legisla- 
tive relief. We believe the Congress and the public should be sharply 
aware of this factor of enterprise control through foundations; it has 
already had some effect on our economy. 


There is nothing now in the law prohibiting such control. A donor 
or testator can transfer the controlling stock of an enterprise to a 
foundation and it may hold it in perpetuity, its self-perpetuating di- 
rectors or trustees voting the stock as they please. It is conceivable 
that certain situations of a special character might be attacked by the 
Internal Revenue Service. For example, if the continued holding of 
one stock by a foundation seemed to prevent it from using its funds 
to the best advantage in relation to its dedicated purposes, it is possi- 
ble that a court might cut off its tax exemption. But such instances 
would have to be extreme and irrefutably clear to promise relief. In 
the ordinary case, nothing will interfere with the continued holding. 
By the same token, foundations holding only a minority percentage of 
the voting stock of a corporation can act in consort with other stock- 
holders, perhaps of one family, to become part of a controlling group; 
there is nothing in die law to prevent this either. 

To prevent a foundation from receiving any substantial part of the 
securities of an industrial enterprise would extremely limit the use of 
the foundation mechanism for the solution of the problem of how to 
meet the heavy death charges in estates whose assets consist chiefly of 
securities in a closely held enterprise. On the other hand, the reten- 
tion of a substantial holding in any enterprise may, in the long run, 
operate against the general public interest. We are not absolute in 
our conclusion, but suggest to the Committee on Ways and Means 
that it consider the advisability of denying the tax exemption to any 
foundation which holds more than five or ten per cent of its capital in 
the securities of one enterprise — and, in the case of an initial receipt 
of such securities, it might be well to give the foundation a period of 
two to five years within which to bring its holdings down to the pre- 
scribed maximum level. 


We qualifiedly support the theory of the foundations that their capi- 
tal and income is often wisely used in “experimenting’' in areas which 
die government or other private philanthropic organizations do not 
enter— we support this theory, however, only as to such areas where 
there is no grave risk to our body politic and to our form of society. 
With this limitation, the theory of “risk capital" seems sound and its 
observation accounts for many of the great boons to society for which 


foundations have been responsible, particularly in medicine and pub- 
lic health. 

The question comes — should foundations be excluded from any spe- 
cial fields, such as the social sciences? Some ask that they be restricted 
to certain limited fields, such as religion, medicine, public health and 
the physical sciences. We do not support this theory. We believe they 
should be prohibited from using their funds for "subversive” pur- 
poses and from all political use, and we shall discuss this further. Be- 
yond that, we believe that foundations should have full freedom of 
selection of areas of operation. 

In giving them this freedom, there is a great risk of waste. This risk 
must be taken at the alternative cost of such hampering of operations 
through controls as to make foundation independence a virtual fic- 
tion. But we urge again that foundation trustees exercise great care in 
avoiding waste. 


Suggestions have also been made that foundations be restricted in 
various ways as to type of operation. These suggestions are of all 
sorts, some of them conflicting: 

That they should not be permitted to act as operating units; 

That they should only be permitted to operate, and should not 
be permitted merely to make grants; 

That they should not be permitted to create subsidiaries, 
affiliates or progeny foundations or operating units; 

That they be permitted to make grants only to existing operat- 
ing units of certain types, such as colleges, universities, hospitals, 
churches, etc.; 

That they be denied the right, in the social sciences, to attach 
any condition to a grant, as to detail of operation, personnel, 

That they be excluded from grants to other foundations, in- 
cluding "intermediary' # organizations; 

and many others. 

If any of these and similar suggestions are to be considered, we rec- 
ommend that this be done only after a truly complete investigation 
has been had; and then only after the most careful study. It is the gen- 


eral position of this Committee that no restraints should be put upon 
the operation of foundations which do not seem inevitably necessary 
for the protection of our society. 


Many detailed suggestions have been made to prevent the growth 
and even the continuance of the concentration of power to which we 
have given considerable attention. These suggestions, for the most 
part, should also await the completed study and should be ap- 
proached with great care. Some of the intermediary organizations 
should perhaps be continued, to go on with whatever valuable and 
safe activities they now pursue; but efforts should be made to induce 
or prevent them from acting in any coercive role, whether by inten- 
tion or by the very nature of the structure of the foundation world. 

Some few suggestions are, however, worthy of immediate considera- 
tion. One is that no trustee, director or officer of any foundation or 
intermediary organization be permitted to act as a trustee, director 
or officer of another, except where members of constituent societies 
may be associated with a parent body. 

Another is that the fullest democracy be imposed on the election of 
members of such associations of societies and similar organizations to 
prevent the self-perpetuance which exists, for example, in the Social 
Science Research Council. 

For the moment, we believe that the problem of “power” urgently 
demands the attention of foundation trustees. In order to escape an 
eventual substantial curtailment of foundation independence, trustees 
will have to understand how powerful their organizations arc and how 
much care must be exercised so that no abuse of this power occurs. 
They must also understand the terrific social impact which a concen- 
tration of foundation power entails and avoid, like the plague, opera- 
tions or associations which tend to coerce, or even carry the propensity 
for coercing or in any way effecting, social controls, compulsions to- 
ward uniformity or any form of pressure on society or on those who 
are or are to become its intellectual leaders. 


Among other approaches to the solution of the problems raised by a 
concentration of power, this Committee urges trustees of foundations 
more frequently to use colleges and universities as media for research 


operations, suggesting further that grants to such institutions be made 
as free as possible of conditions and limitations. 


This Committee is entirely convinced by the evidence that the foun- 
dations have been “sold" by some social scientists and employee- 
executives on the proposition that empirical and mass research in the 
social sciences is far more important than theoretical and individual 
research, and should be supported with overwhelming preponderance. 
We are conscious of the fact that Congress should not attempt to exert 
any control over the selection of methods of research or the relative 
distribution of foundation funds over various types. Nevertheless, this 
Committee suggests that foundation trustees consider carefully and 
objectively our conclusion, from the evidence, that an overindulgence 
in empiricism has had results deleterious to our society, particularly in 
subordinating basic and fundamental principles, religious, ethical, 
moral and legal. In such consideration, we also suggest, as we have 
previously in this report, that they consult not alone with their pro- 
fessional employees who are the advocates of overwhelming empiri- 
cism but also with those scholars and students who arc critical of the 


It is the opinion of this Committee that the wording of the tax law 
regarding the prohibition of political activity of foundations should 
be carefully re-examined. We recognize that it is extremely difficult to 
draw the line between what should be permissible and what should 
not. Nevertheless, the present rule, as interpreted by the courts, per- 
mits far too much license. While further study may be indicated, we 
are inclined to support the suggestion that the limiting conditions of 
the present statute be dropped — those which restrict to the prohibition 
of political activity “to influence legislation” and those which con- 
demn only if a “substantial” part of the foundation’s funds are so 
used. These restrictions make the entire prohibition meaningless. We 
advocate the complete exclusion of political activity, leaving it to the 
courts to apply the maxim of de minimis non curat lex . Carefully de- 
vised exceptions to this general prohibition against political activity 
might be made in the case of certain special types of organizations, 
such as bar associations. 


Whatever the difficulties which foundations may face in determining 
when a proposed activity may have political implications, we cannot 
see any reason why public funds should be used when any political im- 
pact may result, 


An astonishing number of tax-exempt foundations are registered as 
lobbyists in Washington. Under the present law, it seems clear that 
lobbying in itself is not held to be political activity of a type which 
might deprive a foundation of its tax exemption. Moreover, registra- 
tion may, in many instances, take place to protect the foundation 
against a technical violation of the law requiring registration, when 
the only activity approaching true lobbying may consist of merely 
keeping an eye on developing legislation in some special field of inter- 
est. Nevertheless, there is evidence to indicate that much true lobbying 
goes on. The whole area needs investigation. Whether tax-exempt or- 
ganizations should have the privilege of lobbying is at least extremely 


The prohibition against the use of foundation funds to support 
subversion also needs wholesale revision. As the law stands it is only 
the support of Communism and Fascism which is prohibited. It may be 
that the adequate revision of the law regarding political use would 
suffice, but it is clear to us that all support of socialism, collectivism 
or any other form of society or government which is at variance with 
the basic principles of ours should be proscribed. This subject, too, 
requires considerable study. We well understand that some research 
clearly not intended to have any political implication may, neverthe- 
less, incidentally impinge on the political. We also understand that the 
effect may relate to what is merely one facet of an aggregate of collec- 
tivist thought. Yet we feel that the whole field of the social sciences is 
of such a nature that "risk" is not desirable. As much as we support 
taking "risks" in the physical sciences, in medicine and public health 
and other areas, it is clear to us that risks taken with our governmen- 
tal, juridical or social system are undesirable. If there is a burden 
placed on the foundations through the difficulty of drawing a line be- 
tween what is in the broad sense "subversive" or "political" and what 


is not, it is better that the foundations suffer this burden than that 
they take risks with our happiness and safety. 


In this area this Committee has not been able to do sufficient study 
to come to a final evaluation. However, we offer this suggestion tenta* 
tively and subject to further investigation of the extent and signifi- 
cance of foreign grants and grants for foreign use — that such grants 
be limited to ten per cent of the annual income of the foundation or, 
if it is disbursing principal, ten per cent, in the aggregate, of its prin- 
cipal fund. An exception should be made in the case of religious or- 
ganizations, such as foreign missions, and perhaps in some other in- 
stances of peculiar and historic nature, 


We have limited ourselves in the scope of our inquiry, in order not 
to scatter over the entire, gigantic field. We urge, however, that the 
proposed continued inquiry cover those sections which we have per- 
force omitted. Among them is that of organizations which have re- 
ligious names, or some connection with religion or a religious group, 
which have engaged in political activity. There is evidence that such 
groups exist in all three major sects. The right of a minister, priest or 
rabbi to engage in political activity is clear enough. When such ac- 
tivity takes place, however, under the shelter of a tax-exempt organiza- 
tion which is not in itself a church, we question its permissibility. 

There are some special types of tax-exempt organizations which 
seem to us seriously to need investigation. Among them are the co- 
operative organizations, some of which seem to engage in political 
activity and even to promote a form of collectivism. Some labor and 
union organizations also might be studied to see if they have not 
crossed the border from privilege to license in matters political. 
Among unions, for example, there is the basic question whether dues 
payable by the members should be used for political purposes which 
the members have not authorized, 

There are some special foundations or similar organizations to 
which we have been able to give insufficient attention in some cases 
and none in others. These should all be studied. Among those which 
we have not heretofore mentioned (or mentioned only briefly) are 


The Public Administration Clearing House; 

The National Citizens Commission for Public Schools; 

The Advertising Council; 

The Great Boohs Foundation; 

The American Heritage Council; 

The American Heritage Program of the American Library As- 

The American Foundation for Political Education; 

The American Friends Service Committee; 

The Institute of International Education . 

Another special group requiring study is the so-called "accrediting” 
organizations. These (apparently tax-exempt) organizations are ex- 
tra-governmental, yet they act, in effect, as comptrollers of education 
to a considerable degree. For various reasons colleges, universities 
and specialized schools and departments today require "accreditation,” 
that is, approval of one or more of these organizations which presume 
to set standards. Some of these accrediting organizations are supported 
by foundations; through such support, they may well control them. 
An incidental factor involved in this accrediting system imposed on 
American education is its often substantial expense to the institutions 
themselves. The Committee is informed that some colleges are obliged, 
through this system, to pay as much as $20,000 per year to enable 
them to stay in business. The standards set may perhaps in every in- 
stance be beyond criticism, yet the system in itself is subject to ques- 
tion in so far as it imposes on institutions standards set by private 
organizations not responsible to the people or to government. 

As we have been able to devote intensive study only to some of the 
major foundations, we suggest that a selected number of the more 
important foundations of what might be called the second rank in 
size should be examined carefully. A study of these may produce type 
or sampling material of great value in considering the over-all founda- 
tion problems. 

We have been unable to do much concerning small foundations 
and their problems and difficulties. Some of these involve matters 
which should be primarily the concern of the Internal Revenue Serv- 
ice, but we have pointed out that its capacity for watching over the 
foundation field to discover breaches of law and offensive practices 
is very limited. A thorough study should, therefore, perhaps solicit 


from the public complaints against smaller foundations, as well as 
large, in order that studies may disclose what weaknesses exist in the 
operation of these smaller organizations. 

# # * 

While this Committee has spent little time in investigating the 
activities of foundations in the natural sciences on the ground that 
their performance in this area has been subjected to very little criti- 
cism, a continued inquiry might well give attention to this field in 
relation to the problem of subversion. There is evidence that some 
foundations and foundation-supported scientific enterprises have been 
used by Communists, through a special form of infiltration which has 
escaped the notice of those in control. Several important scientific 
projects seem to have been so employed for Communist purposes. 
They have become clearing centers for building up the reputation of 
persons of hidden Communist persuasion and subsequently placing 
these pseudo-scientists in situations where they are able to engage in 
espionage. The process includes using the assistance of scientists who 
are fellow-travellers or outright Communists to provide the material 
which is then used by the infiltrate to establish his scientific reputation. 
This is all done so adroitly that the foundations which support such 
projects know nothing of it. 




On August l, 1951, in the 8*nd Congress, Congressman E. E. Cox 
of Georgia, a Democrat, introduced a resolution in the House of Rep- 
resentatives to direct a thorough investigation of foundations. In an 
accompanying “extension of remarks”* he applauded foundations for 
the work they had done in various areas of activity but asserted that, 
of those which 

had operated in the field of social reform and international re- 
lations, many have brought down on themselves harsh and just 

He cited foundation support of such men as Langston Hughes, 
Hans Eisler, Louis Adamic, and Owen Lattimore. He named The 
Rockefeller Foundation, 

whose funds have been used to finance individuals and organ- 
izations whose business it has been to get communism into the 
private and public schools of the country, to talk down America 
and to play up Russia # * * . 

He cited the Guggenheim foundation, whose money 

was used to spread radicalism throughout the country to an ex- 
tent not excelled by any other foundation. 

He listed The Carnegie Corporation, The Rosenwald Fund, and 
Other foundations among those badly needing scrutiny. And he said: 

* Congressional Record , April 1, 1951, p. A-so^G. 



There are disquieting evidences that at least a few of the foun* * * § 
dations have permitted themselves to be infiltrated by men and 
women who are disloyal to our American way of life. They 
should be investigated and exposed to the pitiless light of public* 
ity, and appropriate legislation should be framed to correct the 
present situation.* 

There had been much bitter criticism of foundation activity for 
many years, and a Democratic Congressman had finally shown the 
courage to bring the subject to Congressional attention. 

His resolution was referred to the Rules Committee, on which he 
was the ranking Democratic member, and was reported out by itf on 
August 15, 1951, and referred to the House Calendar, but Mr. Cox 
must have run into difficulties, for he never called it up for action by 
the House. 

The following year, Congressman Cox tried again. On March 10, 
1952, he introduced an identical resolution} which was reported out 
by the Rules Committee on March i8th.§ On April 4, it was called up 
by Congressman Smith (Democrat) of Virginia, and a highly interest* 
ing debate ensued on the fioor.ff Mr. Cox had criticized foundation 
support of Langston Hughes, a Communist who achieved notoriety, 
among other things, for his poem Good-bye Christ. Because Hughes 
is a Negro, Mr. Cox was accused of racial prejudice. Because he had 
criticized The Rosenwald Fund for having made grants to Commu- 
nists, he was accused of anti-Semitism, 

At the conclusion of the debate, however, the resolution passed. 
The vote was: 

Yeas 194 Democrats 100 

Republicans 94 

Nays 158 Democrats 88 

Republicans 69 
Independent 1 

Not voting 78 

• Congressional Record , August 1, 1951, p. A 5046. 

fH. Res. 881. 

J H. Res, 561. 

§ H. Res. 1553. 

ft Congressional Record , April 4, 1952, pp. 3537, 3539 el seq. 


Thus the resolution passed with a majority of both Democrats and 

In this Democrat-controlled Congress, 100 Democrats had voted 
for a resolution presented by a Democrat, and 88 Democrats had 
voted against it. When it came to appointing the four Democratic 
members of the Committee, however, two were selected who had voted 
against the resolution: 

Yea E. E. Cox of Georgia 

Yea Brooks Hays of Arkansas 

Nay Donald L. O’Toole of New York 
Nay Aime J. Forand of Rhode Island 

The three Republican appointees had all voted for the resolution or 
been “paired” for itl 

B. Carroll Reece of Tennessee 
Richard M. Simpson of Pennsylvania 
Angier L. Goodwin of Massachusetts 

Congressman Wayne Hays of Ohio, who was later to become the 
major obstacle preventing orderly completion of the assignment of the 
Reece Committee, voted against the Cox resolution. 

On May 8 an allowance of $ioo,ooo was requested, but the House 
Committee on Administration cut this request to $75,000 and this 
sum was appropriated on July 2. The vote on the appropriation 

Yeas 247 Democrats 11 1 

Republicans 135 
Independent 1 

Nays 99 Democrats 62 

Republicans 37 

Among those who voted against this appropriation was Mr. Wayne 
Hays of Ohio. 

Though the Cox Committee came in like a lion, it went out like a 


Most of the testimony taken by this Committee was by officers and 
trustees of large foundations and by persons associated with them. It 
consisted largely of adulatory statements praising the work of the 
major foundations. Fourteen representatives of foundations were 
heard, of whom The Rockefeller Foundation provided three; The 
Ford Foundation, five; and the Carnegie foundations, six, A number 
of academicians appeared, all of whom praised the foundations and 
had no serious criticism to offer. 

No critics of foundation activity were heard except Alfred Kohl- 
berg, who had been responsible for unearthing the malfeasances of 
The Institute of Pacific Relations, and four witnesses called to prove 
that there had been conscious Communist penetration of foundations* 
None of the foundation representatives was put under oath. In contrast, 
witnesses who testified to Communist penetration were sworn in. 

The final report of some fifteen pages was unanimous, except for 
the appended statement by Mr. Reece, to which I shall later refer. The 
report held to be unwarranted almost all the criticisms which had 
been made of foundation activity. 

The Cox Committee did find that there had been a Communist, 
Moscow-directed plot to mfilirate American foundations and to use 
their funds for Communist purposes . The final report* of January 
i, 1953, said: 

There can be no reasonable doubt concerning the efforts of the 
Communist Party both to infiltrate the foundations and to make 
use, so far as it was possible, of foundation grants to finance Com- 
munist causes and Communist sympathizers. The committee is 
satisfied that as long as 20 years ago Moscow decided upon a 
program of infiltrating cultural and educational groups and or- 
ganizations in this country, including the foundations. The Amer- 
ican Communist Party, following the program laid down in 
Moscow, went so far as to create a subcommission of the Agit- 
Prop (Agitation-Propaganda) or Cultural Commission which 
gave specific attention to foundations. The aims were to capture 
the foundations where possible, and where this proved impos- 
sible, to infiltrate them for the purposes (1) of diverting their 
funds directly into Communist hands, and (2) procuring finan- 
cial assistance for projects and individuals favorable to commu- 

* No. 2514, 82nd Cong, and session. 

332 Appendix B: story of reece committee 

nism while diverting assistance from projects and individuals 
unfavorable to communism* A few small foundations became 
the captives of the Communist Party. Here and there a founda- 
tion board included a Communist or a Communist sympathizer. 
Occasionally a Communist managed to secure a position on the 
staff of a foundation or a staff member was drawn into the Com- 
munist orbit. 

The Cox Committee referred to the "unhappy instances where the 
committee is convinced infiltration occurred. There remains/ 1 it said, 
“the ugly unalterable fact that Alger Hiss became the president of 
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. And this despite 
the fact that his nomination and election came about through the 
efforts of men of proven loyalty and broad experience in public 

The report said that the Committee was “hurried by lack of time” 
(which was certainly true) and could not do much research in this 
area. It went so far as to say, however, regarding foundation grants 
to Communists and for Communist use; 

In the aggregate, the number of such grants and the amounts 
involved are alarming. 

The report hastened to add: 

Proportionately, when viewed in the light of the total grants 
made, they are surprisingly small. 

The use of the word “surprising 1 * is surprising. It would indeed 
have been “surprising” if a large percentage of foundation grants had 
gone to Communist use. 

The Cox Committee report did mention the support given by The 
Rockefeller Foundation, The Carnegie Corporation and The Carne- 
gie Endowment for International Peace to The Institute of Pacific 
Relations, to the extent of millions of dollars. But the report dis« 
charged the tragic IPR incident with this statement; 

The whole unhappy story of the IPR, which was largely sup- 
ported by foundation funds, has been so fully revealed by the 
investigation of the McCarran committee that there is no need 
to make further reference to it here. 


There was, indeed, good reason for discussing the IPR story in de- 
tail. The McCarran Committee had investigated subversion. The Cox 
Committee investigated foundations. The grave misuse of foundation 
funds, involved in the IPR incident, with catastrophic effect upon our 
foreign policy, deserved more analysis by the Cox Committee than 
the brief, quoted reference. There were lessons to be learned from 
the support by the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations of The In- 
stitute of Pacific Relations, The Internal Security Committee had 

• # * that the IPR has been in general, neither objective nor 
non-partisan; * * * that the net effect of IPR activities on 
United States public opinion has been pro-Communist and pro- 
Soviet, and has frequently and repeatedly been such as to serve 
the international Communist, and Soviet interests, and to sub- 
vert the interests of the United States* 

While the Cox Committee report recognized Communist penetra- 
tion of the foundation world, it said 

that very few actual Communists or Communist sympathizers 
obtained positions of influence in the foundations. 

Having softly disposed of the issue of Communist infiltration in 
foundations, the report treated even more gently the frequent criti- 
cism that some foundations had "supported persons, organizations, 
and projects which, if not subversive in the extreme sense of the word, 
tend to weaken or discredit the capitalist system as it exists in the 
United States and to favor Marxist socialism." (It took the position 
that the support foundations had given to socialism was "educational" 

This quotation from the Cox report recognizes the use of the term 
"subversion" in its true, primary meaning of an undermining. Yet 
when the Reece Committee later termed broad foundation support 
of socialism to be "subversive," it was bitterly criticized for using the 
dictionaiY meaning of "subversion" instead of limiting its use strictly 
to Communist-socialist penetration. 

Many of leftward persuasion protested against the investigation by 
the Reece Committee on the ground that it was unnecessary because 
the work had already been done by the Cox Committee. But the Cox 

* Internal Security Committee Report , p. 84. Emphasis supplied, 


report itself stated in no uncertain terms that the Committee had 
had insufficient time to do its job. 

Here is but one of such admissions, relating to an area of investiga- 
tion the omission of which, alone, was sufficient ground for a renewed 
investigation. The Cox Committee report propounded this (7th) criti- 
cal question: 

Through their power to grant and withhold funds have founda- 
tions tended to shift the center of gravity of colleges and other 
institutions to a point outside the institutions themselves? 

It commented upon this criticism as follows: 

This question arises from a criticism which has come to the com- 
mittee from persons well informed generally and situated in 
positions from xvhich a strategic view of the situation carl be 
HAZARD A VIEW. [Emphasis and capitalization in this para- 
graph supplied.] 

This line of criticism, that foundations had exerted great and ex- 
cessive influence over educational institutions, was levied, as the re- 
port says, by persons of authority. It is one of the gravest charges 
entered against foundation activity in the United States. If the founda- 
tions have exercised a powerful influence on our schools and colleges, 
tending to control them from outside their academic walls, the Con- 
gress and the people of the United States were entitled to know about 
it. That the Cox Committee had been unable to expend the time to 
study it, called for a renewed Congressional investigation; it would 
be only through a committee of Congress that all the relative facts 
could be brought to light. 

The Cox Committee had also received much criticism concerning 
the alleged favoritism of some foundations for “internationalism.” 
This criticism, the report held to be unsound. The Cox Committee 
had no adequate basis for coming to this conclusion. It had not col- 
lected or studied the facts. It would have been better to say, as it did 
in the case of foundation influence on educational institutions, that 
it did not have adequate time to investigate — instead of arriving at a 
categorical conclusion based on obviously insufficient data. 

The Cox Committee report erroneously concluded that, although 


there might have been some derelictions on the part of foundations, 
it was the little ones which had been guilty and not the great and 
poxuerful foundations; these were beyond criticism. 

Its conclusions were considerably weakened by its admission that it 
had inadequate time to do the job assigned to it. Moreover, the suc- 
ceeding Reece Committee found in the Cox Committee files a con- 
siderable amount of material critical of foundation operations which 
had not been used by the latter. 

Upon examining the Cox Committee files, which it received soon 
after going into action, the staff of the Reece Committee immediately 
reported to the Clerk of the House that many important documents 
and memoranda were missing.* As an example, a file marked "Rob- 
ert Hutchins" was found to be completely empty. Whether such data 
were destroyed by the Cox Committee staff or were purloined by 
others, was never ascertained. 

Congressmen are extremely busy men. The members of the Cox 
Committee were confronted with a gigantic research job, the satis- 
factory conclusion of which would have required far, far more time 
than they were allotted. Moreover, as is inevitably the case, they must 
have left the burden of organization and direction almost entirely to 
their chairman, Congressman Cox. It may well be that, even with the 
handicap of lack of time, the Cox Committee would have been more 
productive had Mr. Cox not been stricken down. He fell gravely ill 
while the investigation was under way and died before the report was 


At the end of the Cox Committee report appeared this endorsement 
by Congressman Reece; 

As pointed out and stressed in this report, the select committee 
has had insufficient time for the magnitude of its task. Although 
I was unable to attend the full hearing, I feel compelled to 
observe that, if a more comprehensive study is desired, the in- 
quiry might be continued by the Eighty-third Congress with 
profit in view of the importance of the subject, the fact that 
tax-exempt funds in very large amounts are spent without public 
accountability or official supervision of any sort, and that, ad- 

• Recce Committee Hearings , pp. 6-7. 


mittedly, considerable questionable expenditures have been 

In the Eighty-third Congress, Mr. Reece introduced a resolution 
for a new investigation, accompanying it with a speech.* He referred 
to the work of the Cox Committee as “unfinished business." He stated 
that, while this Committee had disclosed serious malfeasance by some 
foundations, its work had been far too limited to warrant legislative 
proposals being based upon it* He cited, in particular: 

That the Cox Committee had been given inadequate time; 

That foundation officers and trustees had not been sworn as 

That these persons had been permitted to excuse the im- 
proper grants made by their foundations as "unwitting" or as 
made through "ignorance"; 

That these witnesses were not asked why they were continuing 
to make grants “to organizations, projects and persons which are 
promoting special interests or ideologies," and even “outright 
political objectives"; and 

That the Cox Committee had failed to use much of the critical 
documentary evidence in its possession, relating to "subversive 
and un-American propaganda activities which attempted to in- 
fluence legislation." 

Such a resolution passes into the hands of the Rules Committee, 
and here this one stayed a long while. But the Rules Committee finally 
voted the resolution to the floor of the House, where it was presented, 
toward the end of the session, on July 27, 1953. 

Mr, Reece accompanied the calling up of the resolution with a 
speech which pleaded for further investigation of tax-exempt founda- 
tions by referring at great length to suspicions of substantial founda- 
tion delinquencies/)* This speech was no - ■prejudging” of the founda- 
tions, as some of the opponents of the investigation have claimed, 
but was intended to bring forcefully to the attention of the House of 
Representatives tire seriousness of the complaints which had been 
made of certain acts of certain foundations. 

The resolution passed, by a substantial majority: 

# Congressional Record , April 23, 1953, p. 3776. 

f Congressional Record, July 27, 1953, p. 10*88 el. seq., included in the Reece 
Committee Hearings , p. 25 el seq . 


Yeas 869 Republicans 140 

Democrats 69 

Nays 163 Republicans 49 

Democrats 113 
Independent 1 

The Committee authorized by the Reece resolution was directed to 
report before January 3, 1955, which gave it approximately a year 
and a half of life. This was almost a year longer than the life of the 
Cox Committee, and it seemed as though a reasonably thorough in- 
quiry might be had. 

The first step was to appoint a Committee. Three Republicans 
were appointed and two Democrats. Of the appointed Committee of 
five, three had voted against the resolution — Republican Congress- 
man Goodwin (who had been a member of the Cox Committee), 
Democratic Congressman Wayne Hays of Ohio, and Democratic Con- 
gresswoman Gracie Pfost of Idaho. The other two Republicans (and 
the only members who had voted for the resolution) were Congress- 
men Carroll Reece of Tennessee and Jesse Wolcott of Michigan. The 
majority (Republican) members were appointed by Representative 
Martin, Speaker of the House; the minority (Democrat) members by 
Rayburn, die minority leader. 


The enabling resolution read in part as follows (I have italicized 
several parts to emphasize its essential character): 

The committee is authorized and directed to conduct a full and 
complete investigation and study of educational and philanthro- 
pic foundations and other comparable organizations which are ex- 
empt from Federal income taxation to determine if any founda- 
tions and organizations are using their resources for purposes 
other than the purposes for xohich they were established, and 
especially to determine which such foundations and organiza- 
tions are using their resources for un-American and subversive 
activities; for political purposes; propaganda, or attempts to in- 
fluence legislation. 

Thus the Committee was not directed to judge how beneficent 
foundations had been, but to determine whether any had been guilty 


of undesirable conduct. Yet abuse has been heaped upon the Com- 
mittee majority because its investigation was critical. The term “un- 
fair" has been hurled at it because it dared to research the serious 
criticisms which had been leveled at some of the foundations, not by 
“crack-pots" but, as even the report of the Cox Committee admitted, 
by well-informed citizens. 

These attacks came, in part, from the very same professional mana- 
gers of some of the foundations whose acts were subjected to criti- 
cism, They came also in large part from persons whose political 
and social ideologies made them sympathetic to the questioned acts 
which had been brought to light. After all, it is a matter of whose foot 
the shoe pinches. An investigation of “the stock market" or of the 
“munitions interests” or the “power monopoly" or some other critical 
investigation of an activity associated with free enterprise capitalism 
would be supported enthusiastically by those same persons to whom 
an exposure of the collectivist activities of foundations would seem 
an outrage. . 


Just how should a committee of this kind go about its work? Should 
it start hearings immediately, put foundation representatives on the 
stand, and ask them to state whether they thought any criticisms of 
foundation activities were justified? That was largely the procedure 
of the Cox Committee, and it partly explains the failure of that Com- 
mittee adequately to discharge its mandate. Obviously, it would be 
futile to rely upon witnesses for the foundations to disclose their own 
delinquencies. They could hardly be expected to beat their breasts 
and cry mea culpa. 

Some committees, operating in dissimilar areas, could rely wholly 
on the power of subpoena, and bring in witnesses from whose lips the 
full facts could be forced. Such procedure would have brought the 
Reece Committee nowhere. The activities of the foundations are re- 
flected in a mass of printed matter. As the majority report stated: 

The materials of most value are to be found in voluminous 
literature, reports and records. Deciding among points of view 
becomes chiefly a matter of processing the mass of research ma- 
terial which is available, and determining, not on the basis of 


witnesses' opinions but on a judicial weighing of the factual 

evidence, which are correct.* 

The Committee drew an analogy with the work of the Temporary 
National Economic Committee (TNEC), which “conducted hearings 
but leaned heavily on staff reports published in over fifty volumes.'' 


Mr. Reece automatically became Chairman because he had pre- 
sented the resolution. 

I had not met him before I took the assignment as General Counsel. 
I had had some correspondence with him, some years before, upon 
the occasion of an admirable speech which he had made on foreign 
policy, from which I later quoted in a book.f In my first meeting 
with him, I quickly concluded that we could have a happy relation- 
ship. He is charming, courteous and understanding. My long associa- 
tion with him has resulted in mounting respect for his intelligence, 
sincerity, and integrity. 

The violence of some of the attacks on Carroll Reece as a result of 
this investigation were amazing. He has been accused of plotting 
against the foundations, of conspiring to defame and damage them 
for some mysterious reason of his own relating to personal political 
ambition. I have never found the slightest evidence of personal, politi- 
cal ambition in Mr. Reece. 

At no time did Mr. Reece ever dictate procedure to me; at no time 
did he ever seek to influence my mind; at no time did he ever give 
me a thesis to prove. Mr. Reece had no motive whatsoever other than 
to ascertain whether the severe criticisms of foundations which had 
come to his attention were correct. What he was after, and he so in- 
structed me, was to find out what the facts truly were. 

Mr. Reece has been called an “anti-intellectual" by his detractors. 
This is an absurdity. After graduating from a southern college, Mr. 
Rcecc took graduate work at New York University and at the Uni- 
versity of London. He became an instructor in economics at New York 
University, and assistant secretary of that University. He later became 
director of its School of Commerce, Accounts and Finance. He has two 
honorary doctorates. 

• Recce Committee Report, p. 15. 

t The Myth of the Good and Bad Nations , Regnery, p. 40. 


He is a member of the Tennessee and D.C. bars; president of sev- 
eral banks, and the publisher of a newspaper. Hie has been one of the 
longest records of service as a Congressman. Fie was formerly Chair- 
man of the National Republican Committee. 

Mr. Wolcott, the only other member of the Committee who had 
voted for the resolution, was one of the busiest, ablest, and most re- 
spected men in the House. He was Chairman of the Banking and 
Currency Committee. This Committee, engaged in constant and im- 
portant work, took so much of his time that he was able to attend 
hearings of the Committee on Foundations only at rare intervals. It 
was easier to get his attendance at meetings of the Committee itself, 
which could be arranged to the convenience o£ all members. Here 
his wisdom, equability, and strength of character were o£ great serv- 

The Reece Committee sorely missed Mr. Wolcott when he could 
not attend. His contribution was, nevertheless, very substantial, and 
I am deeply grateful to him for his constant courtesy, his willingness 
to be consulted even in a press of work, and his warm and earnest 

The third Republican member was Mr. Goodwin of Massachusetts. 
He remains an enigma. I have rarely met a man more kindly, gentle, 
and thoughtful. But he did vote against the resolution and, unless the 
ranking minority member of the Committee, Mr. Hays, lied from the 
rostrum, Mr, Goodwin had stated privately to Mr. Hays that he was 
"on his side," It is difficult to believe that Mr. Goodwin had made up 
his mind in advance to oppose findings of the Committee which might 
be critical of foundations, but that is what Mr. Hays implied in this 
vicious thrust at Mr. Goodwin; 

I heard you say you are getting tired. Do you know what I am 
getting tired of? I am tired of you taking one position in public 
with pious speeches and then running to me in secret and saying, 
"You know whose side my sympathies arc on/' Why don't you 
act like a man?* 

The strange separate opinion which Mr. Goodwin filed, after voting 
for the report with the right to file a reserving statement, expresses 
some conflict within himself. 

* Reece Committee Hearings, vol, 1, p. 863, 


Mrs. Pfost, one of the Democratic members, was uniformly pleasant. 
She was somewhat overshadowed by her vociferous fellow Democrat 
and inclined to follow where he led. I say this not unkindly, however, 
for I found Mrs. Pfost willing to observe congressional protocol, and 
a woman of poise and charm. 

The belligerent member of the Committee was Mr. Wayne Hays, 
die ranking Democrat. He was frank enough to tell us that he had 
been put on the Committee by Mr, Rayburn, the Democratic Leader 
in the House, as the equivalent of a watchdog. Just what he was to 
‘‘watch" was not made clear until it became apparent that Mr. Hays 
was making it his business to frustrate the investigation to the greatest 
extent possible. 

My professional relations with him were complicated by a succession 
of his intemperate outbursts. From the start, I was anxious to work 
with all the Committee members as closely as circumstances would 
permit. Mr, Norman Dodd, the Director of Research, and I made 
every effort to convince Mr. Hays that we wished to work closely with 
him, Mr. Dodd, in particular, had many conversations with Mr. Hays; 
he outlined to him the nature and theory of the most grave criticisms 
which had been made of foundations and which we intended to inves- 
tigate. Nothing was withheld from him. We were utterly sincere in our 
offers to work intimately with him and to keep him as much abreast 
of our research as he might wish. But wc were met with suspicion and 
distrust and a succession of scenes which were quite unpleasant to 
live through, 

It was difficult enough to work with Mr. Hays in the initial stages 
of the investigation. When it came to the hearings, he conducted him* 
self with quite fantastic belligerence. 


I was officially designated as general counsel at a meeting of the 
Committee attended on September 15, 1953* by Messrs, Reece, Good* 
win, and Hays. My law partner, Arnold T. Koch, was appointed 
associate counsel. I had suggested him because he is a trial lawyer of 
the first rank, a man of great wisdom and balanced judgment. His 
contributions to the success of the Committee's work were most im- 

The major problem in collecting a staff was to find a research 
director qualified by experience and interest. After many interviews, 


Mr. Norman Dodd was selected. He had spent many years, and much 
of his own money, on research of a nature which intimately touched 
the foundation world. 

Mr. Thomas McNiece was selected as assistant research director. He 
had wide experience and was a researcher of exceptional ability and 
statistical experience. 

Two of the staff were personal selections of my own. One was Dr. 
Karl Ettinger, the story of whose release before he had completed his 
work, I shall tell later. Dr. Ettinger's contributions, while he was with 
us, were vitally important. A deep student, incisive in his thinking, 
encyclopedic in his learning, both a theorist of the first quality and a 
researcher of unusual rapidity and thoroughness, he pursued many 
avenues of inquiry which would have been closed to a less qualified 
and searching mind. He advocated the use of scientific research 
methods in the Committee inquiry. Much of the rich material collected 
by the investigation was assembled by him for the purpose of objec- 
tive, quantitative and qualitative analysis. 

My other selection was Miss Kathryn Casey, a member of the Wash- 
ington bar. She became a ‘‘legal analyst,” and was an indefatigable 
and sound investigator. In later stages of the investigation, when our 
financial situation reduced the staff to a skeleton, she filled many 
separate functions with terrific energy and was priceless. 

Mr. Hays had asked to have the right to designate one staff member, 
and the Committee had readily assented. His first selection was un- 
acceptable, as he himself later agreed. His second, Miss Lucy Loner- 
gan, daughter of the late Senator Lonergan, was wholly acceptable and 
she was appointed a research assistant. 


It was well into the fall of 1953 before intensive research could 
begin. Meanwhile, I had spent considerable time analyzing the gen- 
eral problem of how the investigation might be conducted. The Reece 
Committee has been accused by the “liberal” press of having pre- 
judged the foundations. The fact is that I accepted my assignment 
only on the condition that I could direct an objective inquiry. My 
own ideas of how the work should be conducted are to be found in 
an initial report of Counsel on procedure made to the Committee 
under date of October 23, 1953. It follows as Appendix C. This re- 
port was acquiesced in and became the basis for the staff's work. 



The work of the staff was concentrated on a comparatively small 
number of foundations, and necessarily so. To review even a sub- 
stantial number of the existing organizations in sufficient detail to 
make any sense would have been impossible. Moreover, the com- 
plaints registered with the Committee and the critical material which 
it encountered centered principally in some of the largest of the 
foundations and certain intermediary and satellite organizations 
which they chiefly supported. It was felt better to do as thorough a 
job on this limited few as we could, than to scatter our work among 
many. It is also obvious enough that, if unhappy practices exist in the 
foundation world, it would be of more service to the country to dis- 
close those which were backed by great wealth than to spend precious 
time on the questionable practices of comparatively inconsequential 

The Reece Committee interested itself almost solely in the so-called 
‘'social sciences/' education, and international affairs. Little criticism 
has ever been made of the work of foundations in other areas, such as 
pure science, medicine, public health, and the direct support of exist- 
ing institutions of the character of hospitals, schools, <yid churches, 


Mr. Reece had initially applied for an appropriation of $125,000. 
Appropriations are referred to the Committee on Administration, 
which is the financial watchdog of the House of Representatives. This 
Committee was, at the time, Republican controlled. Its Chairman 
was Congressman Le Compte of Iowa. A member of the Reece Com- 
mittee was also on the Administration Committee — unfortunately, 
this was Mr. Hays, who had consistently voted against investigating 

The Administration Committee met and recommended a reduced 
appropriation of $50,000 instead of the $125,000 which Mr. Reece 
had requested. No one in his right mind expected that this would 
carry the Committee through its year and a half of life, for the Cox 
Committee had spent $50,000 in about six months. So the Reece Com- 
mittee was given $50,000 with the expectation that it would apply at 
the end of the calendar year (1953) for an additional appropriation 
to carry it through a full remaining year of work. 


Shortly after the beginning of the following year (1954) Mr. Reece 
made his expected application for additional funds. The staff had 
estimated that $120,000 would be our minimum requirement. After 
studying a tentative budget carefully, Mr. Reece agreed that this 
figure was reasonable, and applied for it. 

It was expected that our application would be acted on promptly. 
But nothing happened for a long while, and we began to worry. We 
had expected to schedule hearings in February, or in March at the 
latest, but it was impossible to do any precise planning until we were 
sure of the appropriation, which now seemed doubtful indeed. During 
this period of uncertainty, when we did not know whether we were 
to be permitted to carry on or not, Mr. Reece did everything he could 
to hasten the consideration of our appropriation, but Mr. Le Compte 
would not budge. 

Finally a break came. Mr. Hays, who had been “bumped off” the 
Administration Committee on some seniority basis, now was suddenly 
restored to that Committee, and immediately threw himself into the 
appropriation issue. 

This is how he operated. He came to Mr. Reece and made certain 
demands. If these were accepted, he would vote for our appropria- 
tion. If they were not accepted, he would vote against it. Control of 
the Administration Committee was Republican and Mr. Reece was a 
Republican, but the ways of politics are often mysterious. Mr. Hays 
had told us that his Party had given him complete discretion regard- 
ing the Committee on Foundations — that it had been left to him to 
decide whether to try to kill it or let it continue. What power did he 
really have? Who knows! Issues frequently cross party lines, and those 
faced by the Reece Committee certainly did. All Democrats were not 
against us. All Republicans were not for us. If Mr. Hays, therefore, 
had delegated power to turn the entire Democratic membership of 
the Administration Committee against us, and if one or two Re- 
publicans were against us also, we were out of business. So Mr. Reece 
deemed it best to listen to Mr. Hays. 

These, then, were Mr. Hays's proposals. The Committee was to drop 
two members of its staff. Dr. Ettinger and Mr. George DeHuszar; and 
Mr. Hays was to be given a member of the staff to help him write a 
minority report if he decided to. This last condition was easy enough 
to comply with. He had already appointed a member of the staff, Miss 
Lonergan, and it was no burden to agree to let her stay on until the 


reports were in. But to be obliged to give up the expert services of 
two productive staff members was a different matter. 

Nevertheless, Mr. Reece felt compelled to accede in order not to 
take any chance that the investigation might be starved out of exist- 
ence. Shortly after that, the application for an appropriation was acted 
upon. A sub committee of the Administration Committee met and 
recommended $100,000. Although this was less than we believed we 
needed, we breathed a sigh of relief to have been awarded even that. 
But our pleasure was short-lived. The whole Administration Commit- 
tee later met and cut us down to $65,000, a sum palpably inade- 


Mr. Hays knew what he was doing when he coerced the release of 
Dr. Ettinger and Mr, DeHuszar from our staff. He was in frequent 
consultation with representatives of some of the more important 
foundations and their allies. 

Mr. DeHuszar had already shown his capacity on the staff of the 
Cox Committee, to which he had contributed a mass of critical ma- 
terial which was not used. In his work for the Reece Committee he had 
begun to assemble significant data on particularly unpleasant ex- 
amples of the practices of major foundations. When he was released, 
this research came to an end. 

In die case of Dr. Ettinger the loss to the inquiry was tragic. Many 
of our most valuable lines of inquiry were devised or initiated by 
him. He had insisted on the tabulation of questionnaire returns and 
a systematic collection of complete sets of data. He had, in die short 
period of his services to the Committee, assembled substantial data on 
foundation activities in education and research. Some of these he was 
able to bring to sufficient completion to enable us to use much of his 
material. Many of his projects, including some of primary significance, 
came to an end when he was released. It was impossible for the busy, 
curtailed staff to take up where he had left off. In this way, some of 
our potentially most important material was lost to the Committee.* 

• Among these uncompleted studies of Dr. Ettinger were a survey of founda- 
tion support to colleges, to discover patterns of giving, and preferences for 
certain types of institutions in social-science support; a survey and study of 
the learned journals, so often an instrument of power in the hands of small 
professional cliques, with a resultant effect upon the volume and quality 
of professional papers; a study of the relationship of foundations and inter- 


To make certain that Mr. Hays's appointee, Miss Lonergan, would 
be in the heart of things, we had assigned her to assist Dr. Ettinger. 
She was thus familiar with all his important work. While Mr. Hays 
did not succeed, by any of his tactics, in destroying the investigation, 
he did deal it an extremely serious wound in forcing the release of 
this brilliant investigator. Had he remained on the staff, a much 
greater volume of material would have been available to judge ob- 
jectively the social implications inherent in the operations of some of 
the major foundations and their satellites. 

Mr. Hays's expressed reason for demanding Dr. Ettinger's release 
was that he was a Socialist. This is rather amusing, since Dr. Ettinger's 
work consisted in substantial part of unearthing examples of founda- 
tion support of socialism. At least since 1925 Ettinger had been ac- 
tive in publicly opposing Socialist programs, and in consequence for 
more than thirty years he had been identified by his writings and 
activities as an advocate of the free-enterprise system. 


On February 15, 1954, but as of January 1, 1954, Congressman 
Le Compte, the chairman of the Administration Committee, which is 
the housekeeping committee of the House of Representatives, re- 
moved both Mr. Koch and me from the payroll through an order sent 
to the Clerk of the House. This was done without previous discussion 
with Mr. Reece — in fact, while Mr. Reece was out of Washington; Mr. 
Le Compte merely directed the Clerk of the House to wipe our names 
from the payroll of the Committee, and notified Mr. Reece by letter 
that he had done so. Mr. Le Compte's action was taken on a wholly 
fictitious set of facts indicating that Mr. Koch and I had violated the 
Federal statute proscribing a conflict of interest. 

Mr. Koch and I had retained our professional relationship with 
our law firm in New York. Mr. Le Compte assumed that our firm 
was engaged in “tax practice," with the implication that we were 
currently trying tax cases against the government. An obvious conflict 

mediary organizations to these journals; special studies on the interlocks exist- 
ing between foundations, professional groups, certain government advisory 
and research institutions, and a few leading universities; an inquiry into col- 
lege-accrediting organizations; and several more studies of importance relating 
to the activities of foundations and their associated organizations in educa- 
tion and the social sciences. His interest was in a wholly objective analysis 
and weighing of the activities of foundations in the social-science world. 


of interest would have been present if Mr. Lc Compte's assumed 
facts were correct. Mr. Koch and 1 would have had no right to remain 
in the employ of the government if, at the same time, we were litigat- 
ing against it. 

The facts were that our firm was not in "tax practice" in the sense 
of specialists engaged in litigation against the government. I had 
never tried a tax case in my life. Mr. Koch, while an eminent trial 
lawyer, had never tried a tax case while associated with our firm. 
Moreover, Mr. Koch and I had directed our firm to withdraw from 
even such routine tax matters as the settlement of an estate-tax return 
or an income-tax return at any point where direct controversy with 
the Government resulted. 

Mr. Le Compte made no attempt to get the true facts before taking 
action. The facts were communicated to Mr. Le Compte promptly 
but without result. All our efforts to see and talk to Mr. Le Compte 
were met with rebuff. Mr. Le Compte would not see us and examine 
us as to the facts. Nothing was accomplished until I wrote to Speaker 
Martin on March 17 explaining our situation, which Mr. Koch and I 
found intolerable, and urgently requesting his immediate intercession. 

This letter was handed to Mr. Martin by Mr. Reece. Not long 
thereafter, Mr. Koch and I were restored to the payroll, with retro- 
active pay. 


President Eisenhower is very conscious of the separate prerogatives 
of the Congress and would not knowingly countenance any inter- 
ference by the executive with the functions of the legislature. But it 
is utterly clear, unless Mr. Hays has sorely prevaricated, that someone 
in "the White House” was actively opposed to the investigation of 

Mr. Hays reported to us on two separate occasions that "the 
White House” had been in touch with him regarding our investiga- 

One of these occasions had to do with our request for an executive 
order to examine a form known as 990A. This is an information form 
required to be filed with the Internal Revenue Service by foundations. 
Most of it is open to public inspection; one part is not and can be 
seen only through an executive order. Why any part should be secret 
I do not know. Foundations are, necessarily and admittedly, public 


trusts, and information concerning them should be open to the public, 
which is their beneficiary. 

As the 990A forms contained information of great value to the 
investigation, Mr. Reece applied for the necessary executive order as 
early as November 16, 1953. Nothing happened for months. 

Our first news regarding the application came when Mr, Hays in- 
formed us that he had been telephoned by “the White House" and 
asked whether he objected to our having access to the 990A forms. He 
had replied, he said, that he did object, and on the ground that they 
were “confidential tax returns." I explained to him that they were not 
“tax" returns but “information” returns and that, as far as we were 
concerned, they were not confidential as we had the right to extract 
the full information from the individual foundations by subpoena, 
Some time later, on February 1, 1954, an executive order was issued 
giving us access to the forms. (Note that we applied on November 
16, 1953*) 

Did we get the forms immediately? We had indicated which founda- 
tion foBms we were most interested in, but apparently no efforts had 
been made to call these in from the regional offices. Finally, on April 
8 , 1954 (I emphasize that we applied on November 16, 1953), we 
were informed that we could now examine the 990AS. Even then, 
however, all the forms we had requested had not been called in; we 
were forbidden to take any forms from the office of the Internal 
Revenue Service; we were not permitted to photostat any; and we 
were permitted to examine such forms as were ready for us only in 
a designated room in the presence of a representative of the Service, 

After the order had been granted, I visited an assistant commis- 
sioner, accompanied by Miss Casey, to arrange for an examination 
of the 990AS. The assistant commissioner told us that certain docu- 
ments had to be prepared, and gave Miss Casey the necessary in- 
structional forms. These were complied with, and the forms were 
typed and signed at once; but the Service required four successive 
revisions before we were told that the documentation was satisfactory. 

When we finally got access to the forms, the hearings were so im- 
minent that no effective use of the materials to be extracted from 
the ggoAs could be made. 



The reader may have noted certain coincidences. 

After fantastically long delays in each instance, the final granting 
of our (tragically reduced) appropriation, the final restoration of 
Mr, Koch and myself to the payroll, and the final granting of access to 
the ggoA forms, were just about simultaneous. 



The second incident involving "the White House" and Mr. Hays 
was even more remarkable. Mr. Hays is no Senator George. He is not 
one likely to be called into conference on policy as a representative 
of the Democratic Party. He is a relatively unimportant member of 
the House, who has attained no eminence and acquired only notoriety 
by his conduct on the Reece Committee. 

Yet Mr, Hays told us one day that “the White House ” had been 
in touch with him and asked him if he would cooperate to kill the 
Committee . His reply, he said, was that he would let the Republicans 
fight their own battles. 

We could not believe, of course, that the incident had any official 
significance. We concluded that the call from ,f thc White House" must 
have been the act of an individual, without sanction of the President, 
and without his knowledge. But it was uncomfortable to be led to 
believe that someone close to the President, perhaps one of his ad* 
visers or someone charged with delegated executive power, could have 
been guilty of such conduct. It was additional indication that the long 
arms of the foundations extended even into high places. 


Congressman Reece has been criticized for not having taken a more 
aggressive attitude as Committee chairman, opposing Mr. Hays's con- 
stant harassment. Mr, Reece is a brave man who has given evidence, 
both in his astounding and much-decorated military career and in his 
political life, that he can fight. But Mr. Reece understood, soon after 
our investigation started, if not before, that we would be met with 
every obstacle which could be put in our way. He was determined to 
finish the job which he had undertaken and not to be diverted into 
personal controversy, His attitude reminded me of the Chinese prov- 


erb: “The wise man is like water, the softest thing which yet breaks 
the hardest thing." 

Sometimes a Congressional committee starts with a honeymoon, 
later to be disrupted by quarrels. There was no honeymoon for the 
Reece Committee. From the very start Mr. Hays began to harass the 
staff and to complain and obstruct. 

He complained frequently that he did not know what the staff was 
doing. The fact is, he knew more about what was going on than any 
other member of the Committee, not excepting the chairman. Once 
my original report to the Committee had been approved, Mr. Reece 
permitted us to go ahead without restraint, understanding that our 
job was fact finding and that time would be wasted by detailed reports 
until we had virtually completed the study period of the investigation. 
As suggestions, inquiries, and data came to Mr. Reece, he would 
transmit them to us for attention. Beyond this, he left us free to test 
whether complaints regarding foundation activities were justified. 

Mr. Hays, on the other hand, had a personal reporter on the staff. 
Nothing was withheld from Miss Lonergan, Mr. Hays's personal ap- 
pointee. All records were open to her inspection. Our instructions 
to her were clear — she was to report to him whatever she chose to re- 
port and whatever he might be interested in. This she did, and with 

Mr. Hays accused us of engaging in research not authorized by the 
Committee. This accusation was an absurdity. The general line of our 
research carefully followed the authority given to the Committee by 
the resolution which created it. This in turn was not materially differ- 
ent from that which created the previous Cox Committee. Mr. Hays's 
position seemed to be that every detail of proposed research had to 
have express approval of the Committee before we could spend any 
time on it. This Mr. Reece told us was not so — that, as long as we 
stayed within the four corners of the authorizing resolution, we were 
free to research what we thought advisable, except insofar as the Com- 
mittee instructed us to abstain. 

Despite all his earlier complaints, Mr. Hays well knew that he had 
received every possible cooperation from the staff, as he acknowledged 
during the hearings as follows: 

Mr. Chairman, let me say that I may be seeming to ask some 
critical questions, but I do not want to imply that there has been 


any trouble between myself and the staff. It may be that I do not 
see eye to eye on a good many things, but the staff has been very 
responsive any time I have asked them a question to come up 
and explain it, or to make the files available, or anything like 
that. There has been no difficulty whatsoever on that score. 4 


Several lines of inquiry enraged Mr. Hays particularly. One, which 
disclosed his reluctance to permit freedom of inquiry, was a proposed 
study of the Kinsey reports. It was undoubtedly reported to him by 
Miss Lonergan that Dr. Ettinger had dug up some significant material 
about foundation support of the Kinsey projects. This brought Mr. 
Hays to a steaming rage, and he asked to see our entire Kinsey file. It 
was produced for him, and he angrily declared to Mr. Dodd that we 
were to go no further with this particular investigation, contending 
that every member of Congress would be against our doing so. Neither 
Mr. Dodd nor I could see any reason why Dr. Kinsey's foundation- 
supported projects should not bear as much scrutiny as any other 
foundation operation. But Mr. Hays then introduced another element 
into the situation. Our appropriation for 1954 had, at the time, not 
yet been approved, and Mr. Hays stated emphatically to Mr. Dodd 
that he would oppose any further appropriation to our Committee 
unless the Kinsey investigation were dropped . His unreasoning op- 
position to any study of these projects was so great that lie threatened 
to fight against the appropriation on the floor of the House. 

As we were already fearful that an appropriation might not come 
through, and our work would be frustrated, Mr. Dodd concluded 
that Mr. Hays must be appeased. He suggested, therefore, that Mr. 
Hays take the entire Kinsey file and lock it in his personal safe so 
that he would know the material could not be used without the ex- 
press consent of the Committee. This Mr. Hays did: the file remained 
in his safe throughout the hearings. For all I know, he may still have 

The Kinsey reports did, in the course of the open hearings, become 
part of the Committee evidence through the testimony of Professor 
Hobbs, who used them as apt examples of "scientism," but the valu* 
able material in our Kinsey file never saw the light of day. 

4 Reece Committee Hearings , p. 54 , 



On a number of occasions, I urged Mr. Hays to give us any com- 
plaints against foundations of which he became aware, so that we 
could run these down. I told him particularly that almost all the 
complaints with political connotations which we had received con- 
cerned left-wing activity, and that I had made every effort to dig out 
complaints against foundations which might be engaged in activity 
at the other end of the political spectrum. None of sufficient im- 
portance to warrant further inquiry had come to my attention. I made 
clear that I was interested in investigating extremism at either end. 

His only major contribution in response was repeatedly to insist 
that we investigate Facts Forum . We complied with all his specific 
requests. We collected for him voluminous detailed data on Facts 
Forum . He wanted control of these data himself . They were all 
handed to him — whatever he asked for was procured and delivered. 

This material was never used by Mr. Hays, except to prepare a 
personal, private brief of his own against Facts Forum, which he 
caused to be published in the Congressional Record . None of his ma- 
terial was offered to the Committee of which he was a member. None 
of it became part of the Committee's record, from which he withheld 

Mr. Hays thus failed to use the forum presented by the Committee 
of which he was a member but chose, instead, to attack this particular 
foundation in a forum where it could not possibly defend itself or 
even file a protest— the floor of the House of Representatives. 


In his minority report, Mr. Hays indulged in gross misstatements 
concerning my recommendations regarding procedure. He said: 

In the early meetings of the committee the general counsel, 
Mr. Wormser, advanced the proposal that the inquiry be made 
without public hearings and without seeking the testimony of 
interested persons, suggesting instead that the staff be directed to 
devote its time to independent study and inquiry, the results of 
which would be brought to the committee when concluded. It 
apparently never occurred to Mr. Wormser, a member of the bar, 
that such a proceeding, in a matter so sensitive, inevitably con- 


flicted with constitutional guarantees of free speech and violated 
every American principle that individuals and groups, subjected 
to accusations in die course of an inquiry, be permitted to defend 

On reading the minority report, I wrote at once to Mr. Hays calling 
his attention to a misstatement regarding the identity of Mr. Koch 
and myself and also to this absolutely false description of my pro- 
posals for procedure. Regarding the latter, I wrote as follows: 

You state that I suggested closed hearings without the presence 
of witnesses. This is not the fact. I did suggest that we might 
consider having closed hearings, but only in order to avoid the 
publicity which you yourself had objected to and for the purpose 
of preventing any injury to the reputations of individuals who 
would be called as witnesses. You, later on, yourself urged the 
Committee to hear some of the testimony in private, a procedure 
which I had thought from the start might be advisable for the 
same reasons you came to understand were persuasive. I never 
suggested to you or anyone else that we dispense with calling 

Mr. Hays replied immediately and apologized for his misstatements, 
but they remain in the printed minority report. 

Fortunately, Mr. Reece thoroughly understood that detailed re- 
search was essential to satisfy our mandate. There was never any 
question of avoiding hearings, but hearings without research would 
have been futile. 

As the time for hearings approached, lawyers for a number of foun- 
dations asked me how we expected to proceed. I informed them that 
it was planned first to put a series of critical witnesses on the stand, 
to introduce enough substantive evidence to support whatever criti- 
cisms the staff had found prima facie to be justified. In this way, the 
foundations themselves would know to what to reply. Foundation 
representatives had then asked whether they could not be presented 
with a “bill of particulars.' 1 I was very sympathetic to this suggestion 
and assured them that we had no intention of surprising them with 
critical material, that every effort would be made to let them have it 
in advance of foundation appearances on the stand. 

• Reece Committee Report, p. 426, 


The canard has been spread widely that the Reece Committee 
“prejudged” the foundations. It was the Committee’s own fairness of 
approach which was used as a basis for this slander. At a meeting of 
the Committee, about a week before the day set for the opening hear- 
ing, I proposed that we give the foundations the “bill of particulars 0 
which they had requested. This recommendation was approved unan- 
imously and, in the case of Mr. Hays, with enthusiasm. Yet he him- 
self later accused us of having “prejudged” by presenting this very 
"bill of particulars.” 


In the presence of the Committee, and with its approval, I re- 
quested Mr. Dodd, the director of research, to prepare this "bill of 
particulars.” He did this in the form of a report which he read at the 
first hearing, disclosing to the foundations the main lines of criticism 
of foundation practices which he had found sufficiently supported by 
evidence to warrant the attention of the Committee. 

For the "Dodd report” to have been distorted into a report of the 
Committee itself, constituting a final verdict against the foundations, 
was a palpable absurdity; yet this became the cry of the pack which 
yelped at our heels during the entire investigation. That report was 
in no sense a report of the Reece Committee. No member of the Corn- 
mittee, not even the chairman , knew what was in it before it was read . 
It was a personal report of the director of research to the Committee . 
It reviewed the methods he and his assistants had used. It stated the 
lines of inquiry which he suggested. It listed the criticisms of founda- 
tion activity which he, personally, had concluded were justified, based 
on the research which had been conducted. It was intended to be, and 
was, the very "bill of particulars" which the foundations themselves 
had requested. 

Mr. Dodd was careful to state that the conclusions contained in his 
report were meant to be only tentative — he was, after all, merely 
presenting material for inquiry. Both the chairman and I made it 
explicitly clear, at the first and second hearings. May 10 and n, that 
the purpose of the Dodd report was "to give the foundations an 
opportunity to know what most important matters we want to go into 
in relation to them.” 

During the investigation I was to learn that faith in the reasonable 
accuracy of news reporting was naive. Many of the reporters who 


attended the hearings dozed or chatted while vitally important testi- 
mony was being taken; but awoke to scribble notes whenever Mr. 
Hays staged one of his antics. Few newspapers gave the public even 
a reasonable summary of what was taking place. A wisecrack by 
Mr. Hays would make headlines while the story of a tragically serious 
foundation error would go unreported. On some papers, notably The 
New York Times, The New York Herald Tribune and The Wash- 
ington Post-Times , die editors were apparently determined, whatever 
might transpire at the hearings, to persuade the public that the Com- 
mittee majority members were persecutors and that Mr. Hays was a 
knight in shining armor, protecting the virtue of the immaculate 
foundations. I do not remember one instance in which any of the 
three newspapers I have named commented critically on Mr. Hays's 
amazing behavior. 

These papers knew that the duty of the Committee was to investi- 
gate criticism, yet they castigated it for presenting critical material. 
They knew that the Dodd report was merely a personal report by the 
research director, yet they deliberately misconstrued it into an official 
and final report of the Committee itself. They knew that its purpose 
(repeated again and again throughout the hearings) was to inform 
the foundations and to forestall surprise; yet they beat Mr. Reece 
about the ears incessantly for having dared to permit the issues to be 
named which the staff thought worth investigating. 

Mr. Koch and I had not had an opportunity to see the last draft of 
Mr. Dodd's report until the evening before the first hearing, at which 
it was to be presented. While it was to be his personal report, it was 
appropriate for counsel to examine it to see whether any constructive 
suggestions could be made. Accordingly, although it had already 
been mimeographed because time was so short, we did make sugges- 
tions for change, chiefly of a literary and emphasis character. With all 
possible speed, a final draft was prepared and mimeographed and 
presented to the Committee the following day, but after the first hear- 
ing (a morning hearing only) had closed. This gave rise to an in- 
volvement with Mr. Hays which exposed his plan to throw all possible 
confusion into the hearings. 

In some not too mysterious fashion, he had gotten possession of the 
earlier draft of the Dodd Report, though this had been distributed 
to no one. Immediately, he invented a plot. He accused Mr. Dodd of 
having produced two reports, one "doctored" to fool the Committee, 


or the foundations, or the public, or perhaps just Mr. Hays. This 
required Miss Casey to take the stand to explain that the draft was 
only a working draft, not issued to anyone, and that there had been 
no ‘'doctoring/* 

In questioning Mr. Dodd concerning this incident, Mr. Hays re* 
minded him that he was under oath. It was a rather sorry procedure 
on Mr. Hays’s part — an attempt to make it look reprehensible that a 
draft of a report had been revised before it was submitted. 

I asked Mr. Hays to delete his use of the word “doctored" from the 
record, and he refused to. To the end, he tried to leave the impression 
that there had been two reports and that, for some felonious pur- 
pose, the staff had “doctored" one of them. It was typical of the Hays 
campaign to discredit the staff; and this obvious red herring was 
exploited gleefully by some newspapers, happy to try to disparage the 


Pursuant to the agreed procedure, the report of Mr. Dodd was 
followed by a succession of witnesses, intended to present material 
substantiating the criticisms which had been leveled at foundations. 
With our budget for the year cut almost in half by the Committee on 
Administration, we had to plan for enough sessions to bring in 
representatives of those foundations against whom the principal criti- 
cisms had been made. Our decision was to call a minimum of care- 
fully selected critical witnesses of demonstrable credibility and to 
supplement their testimony with detailed staff reports, preliminary to 
hearing the foundation representatives themselves. 

The witnesses not representing foundations called by the Com- 
mittee can be put into three groups. The first consisted of staff 
members (Mr. Dodd, the research director; the assistant research 
director, Mr. McNiece; and the legal analyst, Miss Casey) who pre- 
sented prepared reports. The second group consisted of four acad- 
emicians: Dr. Thomas H. Briggs, professor emeritus in education 
at Columbia; Dr. A. H. Hobbs, an assistant professor in sociology at 
the University of Pennsylvania; Dr. David N. Rowe, a professor of 
international affairs at Yale; and Dr. Kenneth Colegrove, a former 
professor of politics at Northwestern. The third group consisted of 
, persons who produced special testimony. This included Mr. T. Cole- 
man Andrews, the Collector of Internal Revenue, and Mr, Sugar* 


man, then one o£ his assistants; Mr. Ken Earl, an attorney from the 
State of Washington who had been on the staffs of the Internal Security 
Subcommittee and of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Senate; 
and Mr. Aaron Sargent, an attorney of San Francisco. 

Mr. Hays and his friends have referred to these witnesses by a 
variety of deprecatory and insulting terms. Mr. Hays himself several 
times called them “crackpots” and added that the chairman had 
"dredged them up” and “dredged deep.” Dr. Hutchins has called 
them “witnesses of dubious standing." Mr. Henry Edward Schultz, 
national chairman of The Anti-Defamation League, has referred to 
the investigation as a “charade ' 1 in which part of the cast was “a 
strange group of witnesses." 

Typical is the case of the late Mr. Bernard DeVoto who, in an 
article in Harper's, almost exhausted the thesaurus in selecting words 
of insult. He said of the report: “This mass of innuendo, insinuation, 
allegation, and misstatement is too insubstantial to be dealt with 
critically." Unable to deny the facts, Mr, DeVoto sought to blast the 
individuals who were connected with the report. He called the staff 
“paranoiacs" and by other choice epithets. He suggested that some of 
the witnesses before the Committee were psychiatric cases. He opined 
that the staff must have been either insane or dishonest — adding that 
insanity was not likely to be the answer. 

Of similar nature was a recent attack on the Reece Committee by 
Mr. Dwight Macdonald, in his series of “Profiles" on The Ford 
Foundation in The New Yorker.* Although Mr. Macdonald himself 
provided column after column of severe criticism of foundation 
operation, much of it echoing specific criticisms levied by the Recce 
Committee report, he had diis to say about the Committee; 

The hearings • • # were largely devoted to the animadversions 
of obscure crackpots and the scarcely more lucid testimony of the 
Reece Committee's staff. 

Among these witnesses labeled as obscure “crackpots" were Profes- 
sor Emeritus Briggs of Columbia, Assistant Professor Hobbs of Penn- 
sylvania, Professor Rowe of Yale, and Professor Colegrove of North- 

The Committee report, said Mr. Macdonald, was “a patchwork of 
data botched together," He called the report “a lengthy exercise— four 
* Since published in book form. 


hundred and sixteen pages— in irrelevance, insinuation, and long- 
range deduction/' He did not deal with the facts which the Committee 
disclosed — Mr. Macdonald did not deign to discuss them. The way to 
get at the Reece Committee was to call its personnel namesl This 
was the “smearing" procedure of critics of the type of Messrs. DeVoto 
and Macdonald. 

A large part of the daily press was equally prejudiced against the 
Committee and avoided an objective presentation or appraisal of its 
findings and activities. 

I can well realize how difficult it was for the man in the street to 
understand that organizations which had done so much good in some 
areas could also have behaved so badly in others. 


It was during the testimony of Mr. Aaron Sargent that Mr. Hays 
conducted himself in a manner without any precedent. In order to 
prevent testimony unfavorable to certain foundations and tax-ex- 
empt organizations, he treated this witness, and the Committee itself, 
contemptuously and offensively. His intention to prevent an orderly 
hearing became soon apparent. 

Mr. Sargent was so well informed regarding foundation opera- 
tions in education that he had been approached by Congressman Cox, 
chairman of the Cox Committee, to act as counsel to that Committee. 
As the Cox Committee had been created by a Democratic-controlled 
Congress, this made it difficult for Mx\ Hays to attack the witness* 
credibility directly, but he found a way to do it by accusing him of 

Mr. Hays asked Mr. Sargent on the stand whether he had been of- 
fered the position of counsel to the Cox Committee. The latter re- 
plied that he had, but had declined for personal reasons. Actually, no 
official offer had been made. Congressman Cox had asked him if he 
would consider taking the position, and the Committee itself had au- 
thorized Chairman Cox to do this. But Mr. Hays made a great to*do 
about the fact that Mr. Sargent had answered "yes" when he was 
asked if he had been “offered" the job, This, said Mr. Hays, was “per- 

Mr. Sargent began to testify at 10 o'clock a.m. on May 24 but was 
unable to give uninterrupted testimony for more than a few mo- 
ments at a time; Mr. Hays heckled him all day. He was not satisfied 


to wait for any substantial testimony to be given and then to cross- 
examine; he cluttered the record with irrelevancies and tried his best 
to upset the witness. Here is an example of Mr. Hays’s questioning: 

Mr. Hays. Do you believe in astrology? 

Mr. Sargent. No, sir; not I. 

Mr. Hays. Could you give me any reason why there arc so 
many peculiar people drawn to southern California? 

Mr. Sargent. I don't live in southern California, and I 
wouldn’t know. 

Mr. Hays. You know, it is a funny thing, but every time wc 
get an extremist letter in my office — and it is either on the left 
or the right — you don’t have to look at the postmark. It either 
comes from southern California or Houston, Texas. I just won- 
der if there is some reason for it. 

There were endless interruptions of this illuminating kind; Mr. 
Hays's histrionics for the benefit of the gallery of newsmen were at 
the same time calculated to confuse the witness, an objective in 
which he failed utterly. But he resorted to far nastier tactics also, 
hoping to irritate the witness into an indiscretion; in this he failed as 
miserably. But he did succeed, through theatrical touches and 
"colorful" antics, to intrigue a newspaper claque. 

It would take too much space to quote all his breaches of decency 
during Mr. Sargent’s testimony. But one remark was typical. He said, 
"I will tell you if we bring any more down here like some we have now 
I am in favor of the committee hiring a staff psychiatrist." * This 
could only have referred to the witnesses who had testified up to that 
time. These were three members of the staff and Professor Briggs, 
Professor Hobbs, and the witness before him, Mr. Sargent. But later, 
Mr. Hays explained, "I did not mean to cast any reflection on the 
other 2 witnesses as much as I did on the one here, to be frank about 

it” t 

Mr. Hays sought to induce the Committee to stop Mr. Sargent's 
testimony in open hearings and to resume it in secret session. When 
the chairman refused to accede, Mr. Hays "took a walk" accompanied 
by his cohort, Mrs. Pfost, leaving the hearing room. As only three 
members of the Committee were present at the time, this left the chair- 

• Reece Committee Hearings, p. 222. 
t Ibid., p. 230. 


man alone and he was forced to close the hearings for want of a 
quorum. That was at 3:20 p.m., very little having been accomplished 
in the taking of testimony, for the whole day virtually was consumed 
by Mr, Hays's antics. 

The Committee met again at about 10:30 the next morning, at 
which time the full membership was present. Proceedings were opened 
with a statement from the Chairman, in part as follows: 

* * • As a convenience to the foundations, an initial report 
was submitted outlining the main lines of major criticisms of 
foundations which a preliminary study by the staff had shown 
were sufficiently supported by evidence to warrant considering 

We are now in the first stage of assessing these criticisms by hear- 
ing some of the supporting evidence. We shall later hear evi- 
dence supplied by the foundations themselves, defending against 
these criticisms. We shall not prejudge. We shall not try to prove 
a case. We are here to learn what the truth may be. 

Needless to say, criticism cannot be expected to come from the 
foundations themselves. It must come, if at all, chiefly from per- 
sons not directly connected with foundation matters. We shall 
give foundation representatives respectful attention. We do not 
see why persons who have criticism to offer are not entitled to the 
same courteous treatment Failure to give them such courtesy 
and inclination to condemn them for daring to criticize frankly 
and even severely would seem to me to deny such witnesses the 
privileges of citizens and to fail to give them the consideration 
to which we believe they are entitled from members of the com- 

Mr. Hays then raised the point of order that the witness Sargent had 
not prepared a written statement for submission to the committee un- 
der the House rules which provided that such statements should be re- 
quired "so far as practicable." The point of order was overruled on 
the ground that it was impracticable in Mr. Sargent's case. The fol- 
lowing colloquy then took place: 

Mr. H/vy$. The Chair would not uphold any point of order 
that he did not agree with, no matter what the rule said. That 
has become pretty obvious in these hearings. 


The Chairman. Now-^ 

Mr. Hays. Don't start interrupting me, or you better bring in 
the sergeant at arms, because I am going to be heard just the 
same as you are. You may be afraid of Fabian socialism, but I 
am afraid of Republican dictatorship. Let us get it out in the 
open. You brought in the shock troops here, so let us fight it 

Mr. Goodwin. I understood we were going to hear the witness. 
Mr. Hays. We are going to have more points of order. 

The second point of order is that the committee is in violation 
of the rules of the House and the Reorganization Act, inasmuch 
as the minority of the committee has been deprived of one single 
staff member. 

The Chairman. The Chair overrules the point of order. 

Mr. Hays. I will say the Chair did not keep his word, When I 
helped the Chair get his $65,000, so you would not look stupid 
when they were going to shut you off, you promised me a staff 
member. Did you or did you not? 

The Chairman. No one has individually a member of the 

Mr. Hays. You have the whole staff. 

The Chairman. There is a member of the staff that was em- 
ployed on the recommendation of the gentleman from Ohio. 
Mr. Hays. As a stenographer. 

The Chairman. No; not as a stenographer. 

Mr. Hays. That is what she does. 

The Chairman. As an analyst or researcher, I am not sure 
what her title is. That is what our understanding is. 

Mr. Hays. I have a motion to make. I move that we hear this 
witness in executive session in order to prevent further name 
dropping and any further hurting of people who have no place 
in this hearing. 

Mrs. Pfost. I second it, 

Mr. Wolcott, As a substitute for that, Mr. Chairman, I move 
that the witness be allowed to proceed with his statement without 

Mr. Hays. You can pass all those motions you want, but I will 
interrupt whenever X feel like it. How do you like that? So you 
might as well save your breath, Jesse. 


Mr. Wolcott, I should like to. 

Mr. Hays. You run the Banking and Currency Committee 
without proxies, but in this committee you run it with proxies. 
You make the rules as you go along for the majority, and I will 
make the rules for myself as I go along, and if this fellow does 
not want to bring in a statement, I will interrupt him whenever 
I feel like it. He better get a bigger mouth than that. 

Mr. Wolcott. As I understand it, this committee made the 
rules, and we are proceeding under the rules adopted by this 

Mr. Hays. You know there is no such rule on this committee. 
When did we make this rule? 

Mr. Wolcott. I understand we can vote by proxy. If we do not, 
I shall make a motion that we do vote by proxy. I understood 
that I have given the chairman a proxy and there had been no 
objection to it. 

Mr. Hays. I just want the record to show that you rule one 
way in the committee of which you are chairman and another 
way here. 

Mr. Wolcott. You can make that record if you want to. The 
Banking and Currency Committee of 29 members have asserted 
themselves on a good many occasions, and we get along very 
nicely in that committee and with the rules of the House. Until 
the Banking and Currency Committee changes the rules, we will 
abide by the rules which have been adopted, if any have been 
adopted. I do not remember that any have been adopted. We 
operate under the rules of the House. 

Does anybody want to support a substitute motion? I move a 
substitute motion to the motion made by the gentleman from 
Ohio that the witness be allowed to proceed with his statement 
without interruption, and at the conclusion of his statement 
that he subject himself to questioning. 

Mr. Goodwin. Second. 

Mr. Hays. I have something to say on that motion. It might 
take quite a little while. In the first place, what this motion en- 
tails is that this fellow can come in here and do what he did 

Mr. Goodwin. Who is "the fellow," may I inquire? 

Mr. Hays. Right down here. 


Mr. Goodwin. You mean the witness? 

Mr. Hays. I will call him anything I like. We understand each 

Mr. Goodwin. Mr. Chairman, I have something else to do be- 
sides — 

Mr. Hays. Go ahead. Whenever you go, the minority will go, 
and that will be the end of the hearing.* If you can just stay here 
and be patient, I have a right to be heard on the substitute and I 
am going to be heard on the substitute. 

The Chairman. Reasonably. 

Mr. Hays. I will decide what is reasonable. In other words, 
you know the trouble around here — and this is pertinent, too — 
that there have been too many committees in which the mi- 
nority has allowed itself to be gaffled into submission and silence. 
I am going to be the kind of minority that does not go so easy 
for that gafhe stuff. 

Mr, Wolcott. You have been in the minority for 20 years. 
Mr. Hays. You know the funny part of it is that most of you 
fellows are still in the minority, because you don't seem to have 
the responsibility to run this Congress. That is why the great 
crusade is in reverse. 

Mr. Wolcott. If the minority will allow us to assume our 
responsibility, we will get along. 

Mr. Hays. The minority on this committee is not going to sit 
here silent and have peoples* characters assassinated at will by 
dropping their names in as Senator Douglas' name was dropped 
in yesterday, deliberately, because it was one of only two names 
the witness mentioned out of a whole series of names. He had 
his name underscored in the pamphlet that he was reading 
from. He had the name "Paul Douglas" underscored. 

The Chairman. But the others were being put in the record. 
Mr. Hays. At my insistence, let the record show. 

The Chairman. No, they were being put in the record. 

Mr. Hays. No, they were not being put in the record. The 
only thing that was going into the record was what this gentle- 
man was going to say. I said if you arc going to read — the record 
is here, and if you want to start reading from the record, I will 
read from the record. 

* A threat to do another "walkout/* 


Mr. Wolcott, I ask for the question, 

Mr. Hays. I am still talking, 

Mr. Wolcott. I ask for the question. 

Mr. Hays. Go ahead and ask. I say the gentleman is coming in 
with a shotgun and shooting in all directions, and the committee 
does not want to give protection to the people whose characters 
he is going to assassinate. That is what the substitute motion does. 
I think it is bad and in violation of the rules of the House. It is 
in violation of the rules of orderly committee procedure which 
you seem to be so concerned with. I just want the record to show 
that if die majority wants to let people like this come in and do 
that, that is up to them. 

The Chairman. All in favor say “Aye/' 

Mr. Wolcott, Aye. 

Mr. Goodwin. Aye. 

The Chairman. Opposed, “no,” 

Mr. Hays. No. 

Mrs. Pfost. No.* 

After this and another exchange among the Committee members, 
Mr. Sargent's testimony was resumed, only to be broken into con* 
Stantly by Mr. Hays. When Mr. Wolcott reminded Mr. Hays that a 
motion had been passed that the witness be permitted to conclude 
a statement before being questioned, Mr. Hays threatened to leave 
the hearing again and stop it for lack of a quorum. He also accused 
Mr. Wolcott of trying to “gag the minority/' and continued his con* 
stant interruption. 

These persistent interruptions, violating the perfectly proper rule 
made by the Committee (after unconscionably numerous interrup- 
tions by Mr. Hays made it necessary) that the witness was to be ques- 
tioned only after he had completed his testimony, ultimately resulted 
in a conference among the Committee members, in which Mr. Hays 
finally agreed that the witness be permitted to complete his testimony 
without interruption and be available for full questioning thereafter 
at any length. After the announcement of this agreement had been 
made, Mr. Sargent proceeded with his testimony but was immediately 
interrupted by Mr. Hays, in violation of his agreement, and the in- 
terruptions continued at Mr, Hays's normal pace, which meant that 

• Jbid pp. 237-240, 


the witness could hardly finish a sentence before Mr. Hays tried to 
divert him. 


At one point, Mr. Sargent had cited Fabianism in Great Britain, an 
authoritative work on English socialism written by Sister Mary Mar- 
garet McCarran, a daughter of the late Senator McCarran, 

After Mr. Sargent's testimony was later resumed, the following dis- 
cussion took place: 

Mr, Hays. ## * Another thing you did, you brought in the 
name of Sister Mary Margaret, and then you pause for emphasis 
and put in the name of McCarran. 

X submit to you that ordinarily people in the orders do not use the 
last name and I wonder if it is in the flyleaf of the book, 

Mr. Sargent. It is. I gave you the information about the au- 
thor and the book, 

Previously you had been questioning authority for the statements 
I was making. I want to make clear that I was relying on a high- 
type of research book in the statement that I made. 

Mr. Hays. Maybe we ought to subpoena tine officials of the 
Catholic University and find out how high type this is, 

I happen to know something about the background of the author 
of that book, and how long it took her to get a degree, and so 
forth, and even that there was a little pressure used or she would 
not have it yet,* 

The rector of Catholic University wrote to Mr. Rcecef stating that 
Mr. Hays's allegations were "completely false.' 1 The publisher of Sis- 
ter Mary Margaret's book had this to say{: 

The attack upon the character of Sister Mary Margaret Patricia 
as a nun, devoted to a life of teaching, with a vow of poverty and 
complete worldly abandonment, is one of the most irresponsible, 
thoughtless, and uncharitable acts that has ever come to my at- 

I do not believe that in the records of the House of Representa- 

* Ibid.j p.231, 

\Ibid.,p. 945. 
t Ibid., p. 946, 


tives there could be found a more striking example of an irre- 
sponsible statement by a Member of that body. 

Mr. Hays may well have created a record for intemperate and un- 
parliamentary behavior while a member of the Reece Committee. 

His interruptions of the testimony must have established a world's 
record — the count was 246 interruptions during 185 minutes of Mr. 
Sargent's testimony. 

It seemed most incredible that none of the newspapers which at- 
tacked the proceedings with such vigor ever thought anything Mr. 
Hays did was subject to any criticism. The New York Times, The 
New York Herald Tribune, The Washington Post-Times — none of 
these ever saw anything reprehensible in Mr. Hays’s conduct. 


I had prepared a tentative schedule of intended foundation wit- 
nesses who were to follow the initial, critical witnesses. This schedule 
included representatives of the following foundations and tax-exempt 

Rockefeller Foundation 
Carnegie Corporation 

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 
Ford Foundation 
Fund for the Republic 
Social Science Research Council 
American Council of Learned Societies 
American Council on Education 
National Education Association 
American Historical Association 
League for Industrial Democracy 
American Labor Education Service 

No foundation witness was to be compelled to appear, but such as 
felt themselves aggrieved or as wished to be heard were to be given 
the opportunity. Those listed above had indicated that they wished to 
appear. I kept in touch with most of these organizations and tried to 
inform them, as closely as I could, when they might be called upon 
to appear if they wished to. And I made clear that they could appear 


by representatives of their own choosing, as we did not want any 
criticism based on a contention that they had been unable to present 
their own "case” in their own way. 

We also anticipated calling Facts Forum, which had been subjected 
to reiterated attack by Mr. Hays during the hearings and had asked 
to appear, In addition, it was expected that we would give an oppor- 
tunity to some individuals who had been mentioned in the testimony 
adversely, to present their "defenses.” 

The first foundation witness called was Mr. Pendleton Herring, 
president of The Social Science Research Council — on June 16, 1954. 
He was selected because his organization was one of those most di- 
rectly concerned in the inquiry and because he, himself, was one of 
the ablest publicists for the foundations. During his testimony other 
foundation representatives were present, ready to testify. One, in 
fact, Dr. Arthur S. Adams, president of The American Council on 
Education, the expected second foundation witness, even handed in 
his prepared statement, anticipating that he would be called imme- 
diately on the conclusion of Dr. Herring's testimony. But Dr. Adams 
was never called to the stand. The hearings ended during Mr. Her- 
ring’s testimony. 

Mr. Herring was treated with every possible courtesy. He was per- 
mitted to testify at great length, reading in detail from prepared 
statements without any interruptions except those of which he himself 
approved, introducing whatever material he cared to. He testified, in 
his own way, for one entire afternoon. His testimony continued 
through part of the next morning. 

After the witness had exhausted his own material, Arnold Koch, 
the associate counsel, began to question him on behalf of the Com- 
mittee. Mr. Koch’s questions were gently put. No pressure was ex- 
erted. It was not cross-examination, in the true sense. There was no 
insistence on a direct answer. If Mr. Herring, as he sometimes did, 
chose not to respond directly to a question, as he would have been re- 
quired to in a court of law, the question was dropped and Mr. Koch 
passed on to another. 

But all this did not last long. Mr. Hays did not intend to permit 
any foundation witness to be subjected to orderly questioning. At the 
beginning of Mr. Herring’s testimony, the chairman had suggested 
again that the witness be permitted to make his statement and then be 
questioned. In contrast to his earlier conduct, Mr. Hays observed this 


admonition and, while Dr. Herring was making his own statement, 
questioned him rarely and only with the greatest politeness. His man- 
ner changed, however, when Mr. Koch began his examination on be- 
half of the Committee; then Mr. Hays proceeded to inject frequently, 
this time intent not on interrupting the witness but on interrupting 
the questioning by counsel. 

This unpleasant situation came to a head 1 when someone from the 
audience passed a paper to Mr. Hays, after which he quoted a verse 
from the Bible: "Should a wise man utter vain knowledge, and fill his 
belly with the east wind?” This was a direct insult launched at Mr. 

There resulted a colloquy among Mr. Hays, the chairman, and Mr. 
Goodwin, in which Mr. Hays, in violent temper, his voice loud and 
strained, committed insolence after insolence. He accused the chair- 
man of not being interested in getting at the facts. He referred to the 
previous witnesses as "crackpots.” He asserted that Mr. Herring was 
the first witness "who has dealt with factual matters.” He referred to 
other witnesses as "people that you have gone out and dragged up 
and dredged up.” He continued: 

And, Mr. Reece, you must have had to dredge to find Mr. Sar- 
gent, and I could mention one or two more. You really had to 
dredge. You went way down with your dredge to get them. They 
are not reliable, responsive. [The chairman used the gavel.] Go 
ahead and hammer. I will keep right on talking when you get 

This followed: 

Mr. Goodwin. Now, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Ohio 
indicates that he is not going to respect the gavel, as he just in- 
dicated, I am going to bring up here the question of whether or 
not these heatings are being conducted according to the rules of 
the House of Representatives, which are the rules of this com- 

Mr. Hays. Well, I have brought that question up before and 
been overruled. 

Mr. Goodwin. I am rather tired of this. We have an eminent 
witness, who must, I suspect, or he may in his innermost con- 


sciousncss, be coming to the realization that he spoke a little too 
early in his praise of Congress, if this is an example of the way 
congressional hearings are conducted. 

Mr. Hays. I heard you say you are getting tired. Do you know 
what I am getting tired of? I am tired of you taking one position 
in public with pious speeches and then running to me in secret 
and saying, “You know whose side my sympathies arc on.” Why 
don’t you act like a man? 

Mr. Goodwin. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask for the rules of 
the House, and I am going to say that the gentleman from Ohio 
is out of order. He is impugning the motives of the chairman and 
the members of this committee. 

Mr. Hays. You wouldn’t say I am not telling the truth, would 

The Chairman. The gentleman is out of order. He has im- 
pugned the integrity of every man about whom he has talked,* 

After a few more exchanges of this nature, and one or two questions 
put to the witness, the hearing was adjourned to the afternoon. 

The chairman had employed unlimited patience throughout the 
hearings, in the face of constant insolence and personal attack by Mr. 
Hays. Mr. Reece had been determined not to let anything break up 
the investigation. But there was a limit to what anyone could stand. 
The explosion which I have just reported reached that limit in the 
case of Mr. Reece and the other two majority members of the Com- 
mittee. The cold record of the hearings cannot bring the incident, or 
Mr. Hays’s many previous disturbances, into proper light. It would 
take a tape recording to add Mr. Hays’s arrogant voice, and a film to 
record his aggressive and offensive manner. 

I think Mr. Reece would have swallowed his pride and gone on 
with the hearings, regardless of how much insolence he would have 
had to continue to face, had it not been that Mr. Hays had now made 
clear that he was not satisfied merely to have harassed the first group 
of witnesses. He had shown his intention to block an orderly examina- 
tion of foundation spokesmen. 

In a conversation with me immediately following the Commit- 
tee adjournment, Mr, Reece expressed concern about how to find the 
best way to discharge our duty to the Congress and the people. He 

pp. 861-864, 


wanted time to think. Accordingly, when the afternoon session was 
called to order, Mr. Reece made this statement: 

The chairman feels very deeply the responsibility which he has 
to protect the witnesses who appear before the committee, the 
employees of the committee, and the members of the committee, 
and to maintain the dignity of the committee, the dignity of the 
House, and to uphold the rules of procedure of the House and 
of the committees which operate under the procedures of the 
House. In view of the very unfortunate incident that happened 
this morning, following similar incidents, coupled with the fact 
that Mr. Goodwin cannot be here at this time due to another 
very important engagement which has developed, and also to 
give time to reflect upon this very serious situation that con- 
fronts the committee, the committee will stand in recess until 
10 o'clock Tuesday morning. 

After this statement, Mr. Hays contributed a lame and only partial 
apology for his distressing conduct of the morning, which was not en- 
tered in the record and was hardly adequate to obliterate the unhappy 
incident which he had precipitated. 

The hearing was then recessed until Tuesday, June 22. This hear- 
ing was postponed until June 24, because of the chairman's absence 
from Washington, and that, in turn, was postponed subject to later 
call when Mr. Hays left Washington on June 24 to attend a funeral 
in Hawaii. 

In the meantime, on June 21, Mr. Goodwin had written to the 
chairman as follows: 

I cannot be at the meeting on foundations tomorrow and in the 
meantime want you to know I think there should be an immedi- 
ate cancellation of all public hearings. 


On July 2, after Mr. Hays had returned from Hawaii, the Com- 
mittee met in executive session and the following resolution was 

Now be it resolved that in lieu of further public hearings and 
in order to expedite the investigation and to develop the facts in 
an orderly and impartial manner } those foundations and others 


whose testimony the committee had expected to hear orally he 
requested to submit to the committee through its counsel within 
15 days sworn written statements of pertinence and reasonable 
length for introduction into the record — such statements to be 
made available to the press — and that the committee proceed 
with the collection of further evidence and information through 
means other than public hearings . 

The basis of this decision, concurred in by the chairman, by Mr. Good- 
win and by Mr. Wolcott, was that, in view of Mr. Hays's conduct, it 
was impossible to continue hearings with propriety. The following 
separate statement by Mr. Reece, attached to the majority report o£ 
the Committee, reviews the facts leading to this decision: 

In view of the decision of the ranking minority member of the 
Committee to file a minority report, copies of which will not be 
made available to the other members of the Committee until re- 
leased to the press, I feel it is desirable to include a brief summa- 
tion of the attempts to frustrate the work of the Committee for 
which the ranking minority member has been responsible. 

It was made clear at the outset that the inquiry was to be an 
objective study. In line with this purpose and after consultation 
by Counsel with attorneys for some of the foundations, the Com- 
mittee decided to inform the foundations in advance of the 
main lines of criticism into which inquiry would be made, giv- 
ing sufficient supporting evidence so that they would know what 
to reply to in their own testimony. This decision was unanimous. 
It seemed the most fair approach for the foundations. 

In accordance with the unanimously agreed procedure, and also 
by unanimous assent, Mr. Dodd, the Director of Research, pre- 
pared an initial report to the Committee which was read into 
the record at the first two hearings. This report, representing 
his tentative personal observations after initial studies had been 
made, was intended to indicate the main lines of inquiry. His re- 
port stated: 

“As this report will hereafter contain many statements 
which appear to be conclusive, I emphasize here that each 


one of them must be understood to have resulted from stud* 
ies which were essentially exploratory* In no sense should 
they be considered proved. I mention this in order to avoid 
the necessity of qualifying each as made, ,, 

This statement could not be dearer. On the first day both the 
Chairman and Counsel made the purpose of the report utterly 
dear — it was “to give the foundations an opportunity to know 
what most important matters we want to go into in relation to 
them/’ During the hearings this identification of Mr. Dodd's re- 
port was repeated both by the Chairman and Counsel. Yet the 
ranking minority member repeatedly asserted that the majority 
had arrived at pre-judged dedsions. Newspapers reported him 
as having said that this was an “Alice-in-Wonderland" investiga- 
tion in which a decision had been made in advance of the trial of 
a case. The majority submits that in taking this attitude the rank- 
ing minority member intended to discredit and harass the in- 
vestigation, and to impugn the good faith of the majority and of 
the staff. 

From the start, Mr. Hays has assumed an attitude of aggressive 
suspidon and insulting distrust of the majority members and the 
staff. He has said frequently that he has known in advance what 
the majority was going to decide. The shoe is, in fact, on the 
other foot. Mr. Hays could not have made clearer, from the be- 
ginning of our work, that he intended to frustrate the investiga- 
tion to the limit of his abilities, and to attempt wholly to “white- 
wash" the foundations. 

The lines have not been drawn in this Committee on a political 
party basis. The opinions of the majority are not party-line opin- 
ions. They are not “Republican” opinions, any more than the 
opinions of the minority are “Democratic” opinions. Many Demo- 
crats voted for the establishment of this Committee, and many 
Republicans voted against it. There is no party significance what- 
soever in this Committee's work, which crosses party lines, and I 
am confident that our findings will find both supporters and op- 
ponents in both parties. 

Sixteen public hearings were held, in the course of which the 
patient attempt was made by the Chairman to follow the pro- 
cedure unanimously agreed upon in advance: that the main lines 
of criticism to be investigated were first to be aired, with sufficient 


evidence to show the reasonableness o£ investigating them, after 
which the foundations were to be brought into the hearings to 
state their positions. 

The last public hearing was held on June 17th. Further public 
hearings were discontinued by a resolution passed by the major- 
ity at an executive meeting on July 2, 1954. 

The reason for the cessation of hearings was that the attitude 
and conduct of the ranking minority member had made it im- 
possible to conduct orderly hearings. Among the obstructive 
and harassing acts of Mr. Hays — all of them during die public 
sessions — were these: 

He interrupted witnesses beyond all reason, attempting to 
frighten witnesses and to disorganize both the initial presenta- 
tions and orderly interrogation by others, In one session of 185 
minutes he interrupted 246 times. 

When, after harrowingly frequent interruptions by Mr. Hays, 
great numbers of which were on extraneous matters, a rule was 
passed by a majority that a witness was to be permitted to finish 
his presentation before being questioned, Mr, Hays angrily re- 
marked that he would pay no attention to any such rule and 
would interrupt whenever he pleased; and this he continued to 

His interruptions were very frequently intemperate, both in 
tone and substance, and in purposeful disregard of parliamentary 
procedure and the rules of the House. 

He repeatedly, and from the rostrum, vilified the staff and ac- 
cused it of having prejudged the complaints against the founda- 

He repeatedly, from the rostrum, vilified other members of 
the Committee and questioned their good faith. He publicly 
accused the Chairman of lying and being a coward; and ac- 
cused Mr. Goodwin of duplicity and of cowardice. The following 
excerpt from the record of the hearings which I, as Chairman, 
had deleted from the printed record in an effort to achieve har- 
mony and to maintain the dignity of the Committee and the 
House, is illustrative of the violent and abusive remarks of Mr. 

The Chairman. Now, the gentleman from Ohio, I am sure, 
is not going to get anybody worked up or irritated here. If he 


has that in mind he might just as well subside, because the 
Chairman for one has made up his mind that he is not going to 
let any byplay get him out of temper. That would impair the 
usefulness of this committee. 

Mr. Hays. Let me say to the Chairman that I took his word 
and he assured me his word was good, and if the time arose when 
I felt that we needed somebody on the minority side that the 
Chairman would put somebody on. 

The Chairman. The conversation was that if the gen- 
tleman from Ohio and his colleague should finally decide to 
write a minority report, that a member of the staff would be 
made available to cooperate with them on that. 

Mr. Hays. No, that was not the agreement, because I don't 
want any member of this staff writing a minority report for me. 

The Chairman. I said cooperate. 

Mr. Hays. Or to cooperate either. 

The Chairman. And assist. That was the conversation. I 
do not know what the gentleman had in mind. 

Mr. Hays. I will say this to the gentleman, that out where 
I come from we have a saying that if a man doublecrosses you 
once, that is his fault; if he doublecrosses you twice, that is your 
fault. X just want you to know you won’t get the second opportu- 

The Chairman. Even that statement is not going to pro- 
voke the Chairman, but there is no living man can justifiably say 
that this Chariman — that this man who happens to be Chair- 
man at this time — has ever doublecrossed anybody or he had 
failed to keep his word. 

Mr. Hays, I am saying both. 

The Chairman. That is all right. 

Mr. Hays. Is that clear enough? There is no inference 
there, is there? 

The Chairman. That does not disturb me a particle. 

Mr. Hays. X know. You are pretty hard to disturb. I thought 
they had more guts in Tennessee.* 

* Author's footnote: In World War I. Congressman Reece was decorated with 
the D.S.C., the D.S.M., the Purple Heart, and the Croix de Guerre with palra. 
He was cited for bravery by Generals Edwards, Hale, and Lewis and by 
Marshal P£tain, 


The Chairman. You arc not going to provoke me. You 
need not worry, I have already made up my mind on that. 

In an effort to discredit a staff witness, he employed quotations 
from papal encyclicals, bringing in by inference a religious is- 
sue where it had no bearing. 

He cast aspersions on the character and record of a Catholic 
nun, the daughter of Senator McCarran, 

He repeated vilified and openly insulted witnesses appearing 
before the Committee. In a letter dated May 30, 1954, Professor 
Kenneth Colegrove noted that Mr. Hays had insulted, vilified 
and browbeaten a witness “in the most brutal fashion/* “On 
thirty or more occasions/ 9 wrote Prof. Colegrove, “Congressman 
Hays deliberately insulted the witness, and on numerous occa- 
sions, he inferred that he xvas a liar . Throughout three days, 
Congressman Hays was allowed to interrupt the testimony with 
irrelevant questions and to make distracting and insolent re- 
marks, On the second day , even after Congressman Hays prom- 
ised to refrain from interruptions [see page 638], he continued 
to interrupt and insult the witness without rebuke from the 
Chairman, [Note that die record will show that the Chairman 
used unlimited patience to try to induce a reasonable attitude on 
the part of Mr. Hays without converting the hearings into an 
open brawl.] I doubt whether the entire history of Congres- 
sional investigations will show more unfair or cowardly attack 
upon a witness than the treatment accorded to Mr, Sargent, Ob- 
viously no self-respecting scholar will care to testify before such 
a Committee under such conditions /' 

Mr. Hays referred in scurrilous terms to witnesses who had 
been heard, using such expressions as suggesting that the Com- 
mittee should have a psychiatrist present; referring to witnesses 
as “crackpots"; asserting that diey had been “dredged up*’ by 
the majority or the staff; asserting that not one single fact had 
been adduced by the testimony; etc. Among these witnesses were 
professors of repute and eminence. In a letter to the Chairman 
dated June 21, 1954, Professor Hobbs referred to the conduct 
of Mr. Hays and said that an atmosphere was created “of fear 
among competent persons who might otherwise question the 
omniscience of the directors of those foundations. Witnesses are 


thereby warned that no matter how objective their testimony > 
no matter how legitimate their questions, their character will 
be smeared and their testimony ridiculed. Such threats add sub» 
stance to an existing awareness that any pointed questioning of 
anti-intellectual or unscientific activities of these foundations 
will seriously handicap or permanently destroy an academic 
career ” 

The first witness who might be called a spokesman for the foun- 
dations was Mr. Pendleton Herring, President of the Social 
Science Research Council. After Mr. Herring had stated what 
he wished, and at great length, the Committee’s Associate Coun- 
sel began cross-examination, whereupon the ranking minority 
member of the Committee immediately made plain that he would 
not permit sequential, orderly examinations. Starting with an 
insult to the Associate Counsel, he indicated by his conduct 
that he intended to frustrate the cross-examination of foundation 
representatives by counsel and to prevent the eliciting of any 
material unfavorable to the foundations. The record of that 
last hearing on June 17 th will show that a final incident of inter- 
ference by Mr. Hays with orderly procedure justified the major- 
ity in concluding that no further hope existed of conducting 
public hearings properly in view of Mr. Hays’ intransigence and 
refusal to obey rules of decency and propriety. 

Among the other difficulties for which the ranking minority mem- 
ber was responsible was the loss, in the middle of its work, of 
two of its ablest investigators, released at the insistence of the 
ranking minority member who indicated that he would otherwise 
oppose any additional appropriation for the Committee. It was 
felt advisable to comply with this demand rather than to risk the 
abandonment of the investigation for lack of funds. The loss 
of the two investigators was a severe one. Several extremely valu- 
able projects which had been started by the released investigators 
were left unfinished, and the remainder of the staff could not add 
the completion of these studies to their own heavy schedules. It 
is the belief of the undersigned that the demand for the release 
of the two investigators was prompted by their very evident 
ability and information. 

One more comment upon the termination of the hearings. Some 
of the foundation statements filed with the Committee have 


been more than intemperate in castigating this Committee for 
ending the hearings. The Ford Foundation, for example, said: 
M We therefore regard the decision of the Committee to dis- 
continue public hearings and to limit the foundations' defense 
to written statements or closed sessions as a puzzling and un- 
expected act of injustice." 

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was even more 
belligerent. It commenced its statement with an introductory 
paragraph which is an affront to a committee of the Congress of 
the United States. Other foundations approached this insolence 
in their statements. 

What impresses this Committee, in relation to these unwarranted 
and intemperate remarks, is the fact that none of these founda- 
tions interposed any objections to the harassments to which this 
Committee was subjected in the course of its work. Indeed, some 
foundations very obviously worked closely with the ranking mi- 
nority member of the Committee in his attempts to frustrate 
the investigation. 


So the end came. It had been bad enough to have to sit through Mr. 
Hays's indecent treatment of the previous witnesses. When he made 
clear that he would not permit the orderly examination of witnesses 
for the foundations by Committee counsel, the majority of the Com- 
mittee, after thinking the problem through very carefully, decided 
that hearings must close, The time which would have been consumed 
in listening to Mr. Hays and getting nothing out of the foundation 
witnesses except what their written statements contained, could be 
better used in sober analysis of the testimony to date, the collateral 
written materials, and statements which the foundations might wish to 

Some critics of the investigation have implied that the hearings were 
closed as part of a preconceived plan to prevent the foundations 
from defending themselves. This is a preposterous falsehood. 


The problem remained of giving the criticized foundations a fair 
opportunity to put into the record, for the Committee's consideration, 
whatever material they deemed of consequence. 


The canard has been spread that the foundations were not given 
a chance to present their “case.” An example of the spread of this 
falsehood is to be found in a booklet of which 35,000 copies have 
been purchased and circulated free by that creature of The Ford 
Foundation, The Fund for the Republic. This propaganda booklet is 
entitled The Fifth Amendment To-Day, and was written by Dean 
Griswold of the Harvard Law School, who is himself a trustee of The 
Fund for the Republic. 

In his booklet, Dean Griswold, referring to the Reece Committee, 
had this to say: 

After developing the case against the foundations, this committee 
closed its hearing without giving the foundations a chance to 
present their defense. Such conduct is hardly calculated to foster 
confidence in the fairness of committee investigations. 

Such writing as this is “hardly calculated to foster confidence in the 
fairness of" an educator. Dean Griswold knew that many foundations 
filed full statement s with the Committee, including The Fund for the 
Republic, of which he is a trustee, and its parent, The Ford Founda- 
tion, which in its statement exhibited pride in the work of its progeny. 
He must have known also that these statements were immediately re- 
leased to the press upon receipt by the Committee and were printed 
in full in the record of its proceedings. 

Foes of the Committee have quite consciously misrepresented the 
facts to the public in failing to state fairly the reasons for the ma- 
jority decision to terminate the public hearings — and in falsely imply- 
ing, instead, that the purpose was to forestall the foundations’ de- 
fending themselves. The fact is that the foundations were given the 
fullest opportunity to present their positions, of which they took full- 
est advantage. 

They followed the hearings closely. Most had representatives pres- 
ent, eminent counsel as well, and even "public relations counselors"! 
They received daily transcripts of the testimony. They knew exactly 
what criticisms had been made of them. They had plenty of time, per- 
sonnel, and money to answer in full, and they were given the opportu- 
nity to do so. They did, in fact, present long statements. The printed 
record contains about 70 pages devoted to the full testimony of Mr. 
Herring, president of The Social Science Research Council and a ma- 


jor spokesman of the foundation complex. In addition, the printed 
record contains statements of other foundations as follows: 

Carnegie Corporation 


*5 pages 

League for Industrial Democracy 



American Council of Learned Societies 



American Council on Education 



Ford Foundation 




Fund for the Republic 




Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 
Rockefeller Foundation and General Education 






National Education Association 



Foreign Policy Association 







In addition, the following statements were included which had 
been submitted by individuals associated with foundations: 

Bernard L. Gladieux, of The Ford Foundation 13 pages 

Joseph H. Willits, of The Rockefeller Foundation 5 ” 

Walter Gellhorn, of Columbia University over 4 M 

Mortimer Graves, of The American Council of 
Learned Societies, in the form of an answer to 
questions of Committee Counsel 9 ” 

TOTAL 31 ° 

Thus, the total extent of the printed record devoted to material sup- 
plied by foundation representatives and associates, including the tes- 
timony of Mr. Herring, aggregated 313 pages.* 

The statements filed by foundations were printed in full, without 
deletion or alteration in any respect, just as they had been filed. They 
were, in their mass, extremely disappointing. They were characterized 
by an evasion of the specific issues raised in the testimony and a fail- 
ure to face the detailed evidence. They were glib, self-adulatory, given 
to glittering generality, frequently abusive; in general, they main- 

• Tages of about G50 words each, in the case of the statements. 


tained that the respective foundations were beyond and above any 
serious criticism. 

By filing statements without being subjected to questioning on 
the stand, the foundations could, and certainly did, make many state- 
ments which would not have stood up under questioning. They 
avoided the danger of being confronted, in open hearing, with the 
necessity of attempting to explain acts and procedures which were ex- 
tremely difficult to justify. 

Nor did they lose the opportunity to have their case get to public 
notice. Their statements received the widest newspaper treatment, in 
many instances being printed in full in some of the press, particu- 
larly in The New York Times , which gave publicity to these state- 
ments far wider than would normally have been the case in the event 
of a mere reporting of testimony. The filing of the uncensored pre- 
pared statements, promptly delivered under authority of the Com- 
mittee to individual newspapers and to the press services, gave the 
complaining foundations die widest possible publicity for their “case/' 


When the hearings closed, early in July, at least four or five more 
months of intensive research should have been possible, and an ade- 
quate staff to assist in assembling, digesting and organizing the ma- 
terials. But its financial condition forced the Committee to release the 
entire staff by August i, except for a skeleton crew necessary to do 
what was referred to as “house-cleaning." The associate counsel (Mr, 
Koch), the director of research (Mr. Dodd), his assistant (Mr. Mc- 
Niece), and almost all the rest of the group left on August 1. The 
only major staff member remaining was Miss Casey. Miss Lonergan 
was still on the payroll but, once the hearings had started, she had 
ceased to be of any service in research or in other ways to the Com- 
mittee in general — she spent all her time assisting Mr. Hays. 

Miss Casey took the burden of the extensive executive work which 
remained, while I worked on the draft of the report, clearing fre- 
quently with Mr. Reece. In some miraculous way, perhaps by working 
twenty-six hours a day. Miss Casey managed to complete some addi- 
tional and very valuable research. 

After the Committee members had had time to study the draft of 
the report, a meeting was called at which all were present except 


Mrs. Pfost, who was represented by Mr. Hays as proxy. Miss Casey 
and I were also present In the discussions which ensued, it was un- 
derstood that certain material was to be added to the draft which had 
not been included but was carefully described, including its Appen- 
dix, which I did not prepare. 

I had expected “fireworks'' at this meeting from Mr. Hays. To my 
amazement, he was calmness itself. He voted, on behalf of himself 
and Mrs. Pfost, against the report. But his only concern seemed to be 
that he be given an opportunity to present a minority report, Messrs. 
Wolcott and Reece approved of the majority report in its entirety 
and voted for it. Mr. Goodwin voted for it but stated that he ob- 
jected to parts of it and asked die right to file a separate statement 
with die report, dissenting in part. 

This was all arranged amicably. A date was set for the public re- 
lease of die majority report, and it was agreed that a minority report 
might be filed and released simultaneously, even though the majority 
would not have had an opportunity to read it before its release. It 
was also agreed that any Committee member might file a separate, 
personal statement at the same time. 

The minority report was filed in accordance with diis agreed proce- 
dure, and die majority did not see it until it was released to the press. 
Mr. Goodwin missed the deadline and did not get his separate state- 
ment in until after the full document had gone to press, was finally 
printed, and was released. His separate statement was, however, sepa- 
rately mimeographed and released promptly to the press after receipt. 

The short minority report set the theme for the subsequent criticism 
of the Committee by its foes. It ignored the mass of convincing evi- 
dence upon which the majority’s findings were based, and resorted to 
considerable misstatement and to vituperative attacks on the majority, 
counsel, and staff. 


I have referred to the practice of the critics of the Reece Committee 
of setting up straw men to have the pleasure of knocking them down, 
I shall identify some of these creatures which they have tried to foist 
upon the Committee, 

1 . The allegation that the Committee disapproved of foundations, 
(The Committee expressly held that foundations are very desirable.) 


2. The allegation that the Committee was critical of all founda- 
tions, (The Committee criticized only a small number of the great 
multitude of foundations.) 

3. The allegation that the Committee disregarded the wonderful 
work which some of the criticized foundations have accomplished for 
society . (The Committee expressly applauded the many wonderful 
works of some of the foundations which it criticized most heavily for 
works which were not so wonderful. Its position, however, was that 
many good works do not excuse those which are bad. The analogy 
may not be expressly apt but it is illustrative — that a man cannot be 
excused for an arson because he has been kind to the poor.) 

4. The allegation that the Committee held that the advocacy of cer- 
tain social and philosophical concepts , largely identified with social- 
ism, should be repressed. (The position of the Committee was that art 
individual was entitled to advocate radicalism of any color as much as 
he pleased, but that it is a far different matter when we are dealing 
with foundations. These are public trusts dedicated to the public and 
operating with tax-exempt funds; it is to be expected of them, there- 
fore, that they refrain from advocacy in the area of politics if they 
claim continued tax exemption.) 

5. The allegation that the Committee opposed (< empiricar research . 
(The Committee recognized not only the value but the necessity of 
empirical research. It commented only on the excessive, unbalanced 
favor for projects and persons identified with a faction among social 
scientists dedicated to a pragmatic philosophy, to materialistic con- 
cepts of history, and to Socialist goals. It considered the conformism 
resulting from such favoritism as a danger for research, scholarship, 
and education and as a political force ultimately controlling our gov- 
ernment and affecting public welfare. Empirical research therefore 
was not criticized in the intention to restrain scholarly pursuits or 
academic freedom, but reviewed for the purpose of pointing to dan- 
gers for our public life from the support by foundations of one 
ideological and theoretical faction at the expense of all others. The 
Committee wanted to attract attention to dangers of conformism and 
the resulting fads and foibles in the social sciences.) 

6. The allegation that the Committee was trying to exercise 
44 thought control ” and advocated uniformity and conformity . (The 
Committee could not have felt more strongly that it is essential to 
our society that the freedom of research, freedom of inquiry, freedom 


of opinion and freedom in general be maintained and protected. In- 
deed, what disturbed it most was the mass of evidence leading to the 
conclusion that some of the foundations and their cooperating, inter- 
mediary organizations have tended to exercise or create a form of 
"thought control” in the social sciences and education through an 
imposition of conformity and uniformity by various means of intel- 
lectual coercion. It was critical of the extent to which social scientists 
have been tempted to conform to the favorite ideas, attitudes, and re- 
search methods of the advisers and managers of grant-dispensing or- 
ganizations. The observant scholar in search of support for a research 
project soon learns to design his application for a grant so as to con- 
form with the known preferences of the decision-making executives. 
Because these executives of the major foundations and intermediary 
organizations cooperate, the result is uniformity of thought, of goals, 
and of methods.) 




October 23, 1953. 

This memorandum, prepared by Counsel in collaboration with the 
Director of Research, is the result of intensive application to the very 
difficult task of planning the work of the staff. It must, necessarily, 
be incomplete and tentative. The work itself, as it progresses, will de- 
termine in great measure more precise directions. This is, moreover, 
merely our own (tentative) conception of how our service to the 
Committee should be rendered. We shall proceed upon it as a base, 
except in so far as the Committee may direct us otherwise. We solicit 
directions from the Committee and individual suggestion from all its 

We ask that this memorandum be kept confidential to avoid acci- 
dental or premature publicity, or the transmission to others of plans 
which are only tentative. 

The intended lines of inquiry for this Committee are set forth in de- 
tail in certain projects later herein described. Those questions which 
have been most often raised and discussed (and they are specially 
covered by House Resolution si 7) are: 

The extent to which foundtion funds have been used for un- 
American and subversive purposes; and 

The extent to which foundation funds have been used for politi- 
cal purposes, propaganda or attempts to influence legislation. 



Before setting forth the proposed projects and all of the areas of 
inquiry, we offer some reflections in the way of background material. 

# # * 


Tax exempt foundations have already played an extremely impor- 
tant part in our society, and are likely to become increasingly im- 
portant. We do not agree with the opinion voiced by several witnesses 
before the Cox Committee that the birth rate of large foundations will 
decline in the future because of the impact of the tax laws. The tax 
laws themselves tend to stimulate the use of foundations to solve the 
problems (1) of paying the death taxes without sacrificing an enter- 
prise, and (2) of management continuance. It is safe to say that the 
use of foundations for basically tax purposes is on a rising curve. 
Great numbers of foundations with but small capital today are essen- 
tially vehicles to receive huge grants upon the death of their respec- 
tive creators. We are personally aware of prospective foundation 
funds aggregating many hundreds of millions of dollars which will 
come into use upon the death of various individuals. It is our belief 
that the next two or three decades should amplify the total capital of 
the foundations by some billions of dollars. 

Accordingly, the eventual, aggregate financial power of the founda- 
tions will be immense. This power, intended to be benign, may not 
always be so. The very financial power, carrying with it the ownership 
of a considerable section of American industry, could wield a strong 
influence upon our economic, political, and social life. In an address 
at the University of Chicago last winter, on the subject of Family En- 
terprises, General Counsel to this Committee predicted that, after a 
period of years, a large part of American industry would come into 
the hands of certain special ownership groups, such as pension trusts, 
foundations, labor unions, and insurance companies. He pointed out 
that such a development might, some day, necessitate the enactment 
of laws similar to the Statutes of Mortmain in England which con- 
fiscated lands of the Church because it had acquired so great a section 
of the British landscape. While such extreme relief may never come to 
be necessary, there is no denying that the aggregate power of founda- 
tions may become formidable. 

To the extent that this power is granted freedom, it can act for good 


but also for evil. Further and closer regulation is possible; but it is 
possible, also, that regulation would not prevent abuses of this ag- 
gregate power, or of sections of it, unless it proceeded so far as to 
wholly deprive foundations of independence. Starting with the prem- 
ise that foundations are basically desirable, excessive regulation, which 
would deprive them virtually of all freedom, might well destroy their 
character, their usefulness and their desirability. Therefore, regulatory 
measures should be approached with grave caution. We are not pre- 
pared at this time even to suggest that further regulation is needed. It 
seems essential to us that as scientific a collection and integration of 
facts as possible be accomplished before anyone, whether in this Com- 
mittee or outside, arrives at any precise conclusions, 

We believe, however, that, as the work of the Committee proceeds, it 
should be aware of the several basic philosophical and legal problems 
involved and of such new ones as may appear from the work. Though 
all decisions should be postponed and the investigation approached 
with as little bias as is humanly possible, an understanding of some of 
the basic philosophic questions which have been directed against foun- 
dations, can act as a stimulus to a more intensive, intelligent and 
comprehensive investigation, and a more desirable result in the pro- 
duction of data of value. 

A. Is the foundation socially desirable? A minority of Americans 
answers this in the negative; some on the "statist” basis that the Gov- 
ernment should take over all "charitable" functions and that private 
giving thus conflicts with this function; others on the ground that foun- 
dations have or may acquire too great economic or extra-governmen- 
tal power; still others on the ground that individuals should not be 
given the privilege of giving public money (to the extent that founda- 
tion funds are, in part, tax-free funds and, therefore, the equivalent of 
a public grant) as they, idiosyncraticaliy, please; and there are other 
objections to the foundation as an institution. But the unquestiona- 
ble majority of Americans believes in private "charitable" giving, 
in the foundation as a proper medium for such giving, and in the 
right of the individual, within wide limits, to be idiosyncratic if he 

B. If foundations are desirable, should limitations be put upon their 
use? In this area there are all sorts of proposals. The tax law has al- 
ready created some limitations of which you are, no doubt, aware, 


Under Section 3813 of the Internal Revenue Code, certain transac- 
tions are prohibited — in general, transactions tending to benefit the 
donor of the foundation, or his family, or controlled trusts or corpo- 
rations. “Unrelated income' 1 is made taxable, as well as “Supplement 
U Income" — the objective being to prevent the use of foundations for 
indirect business or personal purposes. Unreasonable accumulations 
of income are prohibited. And foundations may not engage in certain 
activities, of which subversion and political activity are the most im- 

It is possible that extensions of these restrictions may become ad- 
visable. It is also possible that no further restrictions are needed. The 
disclosed facts should determine. Proposals range all the way from (a) 
restricting foundation purposes and donations to certain direct 
fields, such as religion, medicine, health and education, to (b) restrict- 
ing them to either direct donations without constricted or directed 
purpose or to what might be called operating, as against donating, 
foundations. “Proposal (b)” is sometimes based on a dislike of the 
theory that because Government is more and more taking over the 
functions of security for the individual, foundation funds should be 
applied as “risk capital" to social experimentation. 

Another type of restriction which is sometimes suggested is that the 
individual (or the individual foundation) should have considerable 
freedom, considerable discretion, but that there should be limitations 
or supervision to prevent the waste of money which is admittedly (all 
the major foundations seem to admit it) a public trust, through ap- 
plication to objectives which arc deemed unsocial, undesirable or 

Many more suggestions for restriction have been made. Another is 
that the rule against perpetuities, or some other limitation on the life 
of a purely donative foundation, should be applied to prevent a per- 
petuation of the fund. Still another is that a violation of any of the 
restrictions of the tax law should not result merely in a loss of the in- 
come tax exemption (the present limit of punishment) but, retroac- 
tively, a loss of the initial gift tax or estate tax exemption. We cannot 
list all of the suggestions which have been made, but merely wish here 
to indicate how varied the critical suggestions for reform have been. 

We repeat our opinion that a full discussion of any proposals for 
reform should await the facts we disclose; any predisposition to a 


remedy may risk serious error. We wish to emphasize our staff theory 
that if any remedies are to suggest themselves, it should be because 
intelligently and fairly assembled facts prompt them. 

C. Control as a basic problem . This brings us to the basic control 
problem. We would assume that the Committee would be disposed to 
a minimum of Federal control. The rights, duties and responsibilities 
of foundations are, in our opinion, primarily matters of state law 
with which the Federal government should not interfere unless 
grounds of national welfare, strong enough to induce an application 
of a broad Federal constitutional theory, should appear. For the mo- 
ment, then, the only mechanism of control available to the Congress is 
the tax law. Congress has the clear right to place reasonable conditions 
upon the privilege of tax exemption. It has done so, as to income tax, 
gift tax and estate tax. If amendments to these tax laws come to ap- 
pear desirable, it is the province of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, as we understand it, to consider such amendments. We con- 
ceive our function in part to be to produce the facts upon which 
that Committee may, if it chooses, act further. We deem it within our 
province to state the facts which have appeared, collate them, and sug- 
gest areas of consideration for Ways and Means if the Committee finds 
this desirable. 

If acute or chronic foundation ailments should appear, the remedies 
may not, in every case, be through legislation. A disclosure of the 
ailments may, to some extent, induce reform within the ailing founda- 
tion itself. And the very statement of the facts may induce the public 
to take an interest of a nature to bring about reform through the 
force of public opinion, 

D. Should further foundations be encouraged? This question is put 
in the light of the present tax laws which are an invitation to create 
foundations. Foundations were formerly almost always created from 
an entirely charitable impulse. They are now most frequently created 
for reasons basically involving the tax laws, even though the charita- 
ble purposes are sincere. Do we want to continue this encouragement, 
or go back to permitting foundations as a simple privilege? The an- 
swer to this question is again one for Ways and Means, which should 
perhaps consider, in the light of our disclosed facts, whether reforms in 
the tax law might not be desirable, directed at reducing the pressure 
to create foundations. For example, making easier the problem of 
liquidating frozen estates (closely held stock cases) to pay death taxes, 


might well reduce the number of foundations created in the future. 
On the other hand, the answer might be that the tax pressure operates 
benignly and should not be reduced, 

E. Do foundations influence public opinion and is this influence de • 
sirable ? This basic $nd vital question could be broken down into 
such categories as these: 


Public affairs, 

Politics and the theory of government. 


International affairs, 

Labor relations. 


Recognizing the unquestionably magnificent contributions which 
the foundations have made to society in certain areas, we are inclined 
to exclude from our studies the application of funds to certain of 
these specific areas, notably religion, medicine and health, except 
where exceptional reason for a study may exist. An example of an 
exception might be a religious organization engaged in anti-Catho- 
lie or anti-Semitic activity, or a foundation expending great sums in- 
ternationally on medicine or health — this last in connection with the 
general question of die extent to which foundations to use, and may be 
justified in using, tax free American money abroad. 

* • « 

The following are specific projects which we have outlined to guide 
the staff work. Some overlap, of course, on others. 



i. Coordination with Federal committees on subversion for the 
purpose of checking existing material on foundations. 

a, Secure copies of records and reports of other commit- 
tees to establish collateral library. 


b. Arrange for access to other materials of such commit- 
tees. ■ 

c. Request such committees for foundation leads. 

2. Coordination with similar State committees. 

a. California Un-American Activities Committee has a 
mass of material, including much on foundations and 
their penetration of educational institutions. 

b. The California Senate Committee on Education (Mr. 
Dilworth, Chairman) may have still better material. 

c. Contact similar other state committees. 

d. Assemble library of reports, etc. 

g. Coordination with Attorney General. 

a. Get his list of subversive organizations for check pur- 
poses and keep up to date. 

b. Get leads. 

4. Coordination with Internal Revenue. 

a. Get its list of foundations. 

b. Arrange to keep it up to date. 

c. Get access to their statistical material. 

d. Get access to their foundation annual reports. 

e. Procure their criteria for judging illegal activities 
which would deprive a foundation of tax exemption 
— for example, definition of political use and propa- 
ganda. We are not necessarily bound by such defini- 
tions but might start with them. 

f. Get leads. 

5. Coordination with FBI. 

a. Probably very doubtful, but we may get substantial 
assistance in checking subversives. 

6. Miscellaneous library material. 

a. There are organizations which collect data on founda- 
tions. We should assemble as much as possible. Exam- 
ple, Russell Sage Foundation material. We might so- 
licit the foundations to give us whatever material they 
may have in the way of studies of foundation work 
and their place in society, as well as any plans they 
may have for future studies. 

7. Assistance from individuals. 


a. Make check list of individuals who may have material 
resulting from their own studies of foundations. 

b. Make contact with each to secure leads and coopera- 

8. As soon as possible, build up a quick reference file or card file 
to save time in cross-checking. Designing a filing system which 
could be used in reference work is an allied project. 



It is proposed to assemble, classify and sum up facts concerning 
the tax-exempt Foundations in the United States since 1918 in 
such a manner as will enable the Committee most rapidly and 
conveniently to determine, among other things: 

a. The extent and nature of their resources. 

b. The purposes to which these resources have been de- 

c. The qualifications of those charged with tire responsi- 
bility of directing their resources toward die achieve- 
ment of these purposes. 

d. The size, composition and organization of the staffs 
maintained to supervise their operations. 

e. Operating costs and the relation which they bear to 
their total resources. 

f. The number and nature of grants made. 

g. The number and nature of grants refused. 

h. The degree of control which they exercise over the 
recipients of such grants. 

i. The directional policies and practices relied upon to 
insure the effectiveness of these controls. 

Broadly speaking, these facts are essential to any effort to pass 
judgment upon or appraise the value of an enterprise or a seg- 
ment of American wealth. In addition, it is intended that these 
facts shall be classified according to Foundations which are dis- 
tinguishable from each other because of: 

a. Purpose. 

b. Size of either endowment or quantity of annual con- 


c. Nature of investments. 

d. Type of organization (i.e., corporate or fiduciary). 

e. Methods of operation. 

Finally, it is contemplated that, to facilitate the interpretation 
of these “findings," the staff will present to the Committee its 
own objective summation of the trends which have characterized 
such essential aspects of life in the United States since 1918 as 
education, politics and finance — drawing for this purpose upon 
resources which, in its opinion, can be qualified as authoritative, 
objective and unprejudiced. 



This should be done by the Research Director himself, or a 
top assistant, to determine what material should be amplified 
and what subjects should be carried further or integrated with 
other projects. 



1. Analysis of existing questionnaires. 

a. Selection of cases for study. 

b. Identification of reasons for study. 

c. Determine whether follow-up questionnaire should be 
sent; should such be uniform or designed to fit each 

d. Follow-through, in some cases, on operation of proj- 
ects started by foundations last year. 

2. Additional mass questionnaires? 

a. Should any be sent? 

b. To large, middle or small groups? 

c. Should we, by this method or any other, try to show 
evidence that a great number of now small founda- 
tions are actually vehicles to receive larger funds at 
death of donor? 

3. Questionnaires to selected list of donees to see what other 
foundation grants they have received. Also, to check what 
work they have done. 




l. In the work of identification of individuals, projects, pur- 
poses and operations, we must check against standards. We 
shall have to take the risk of determining these standards; 
they should be defined as closely in relation to legal precepts 
as we can. We can start with Internal Revenue, F.B.I. and 
other Committee definitions. It might be wise, in connection 
with hearings, to prepare a list of definitions for submission 
to prospective witnesses to avoid semantic bogs. 

Among them are: 

a. propaganda. 

b. political purposes or uses. 

c. socialism. 

d. communism, 

e. fascism. 

f. subversion. 

g. slanting. 

h. anti-social activity, 

i. radicalism. 

j. leftism. 

k. rightism, 

l. lobbying. 

m, un-American activity. 

etc., etc., etc. (There may be many more.) 




1. To cover cases as to which there has already been testimony, 
or as to which we may have new material, and where: 

a. There have been subversive grants; 

b. There has been political use; or 

c. There has been gravely slanted use. 

2 . A factual presentation in this area would be of great value 


a. The dangers which deserve the administrative atten- 
tion of good foundations; 

b. Areas in which remedial legislation by the states might 
be desirable; and 

c. Areas of consideration for Congress. 

g. Except where wicked intention is clear, we take goodwill for 
granted and assume that no impropriety was intended. 

4. Then — How did it happen? Who was responsible? Why? What 
caused such unintended results? 

5. This can, in part, be reduced, perhaps, to a somewhat statisti- 
cal result. That is, we can list instances in which an improper 
award was made for such reasons as: 

a. Lack of sufficient investigation or check of the project. 

b. Lack of supervision or control in operation. 

c. Calculated design at the source of die appointment 
(prompting of the appointment, perhaps, by a sub- 
versive or extremist on the staff). 

d. Lack of security check. 

e. Inattention by trustees. 

Etc., etc., etc. 

6. In cases where an admittedly unfortunate donation was made 
and the foundation has expressed regret and asserted that it 
would not willingly or knowingly make such an award, should 
we not run down the extent to which the foundation has tried 
to ascertain whether an error in procedure existed and take 
steps to try to prevent a recurrence? 



1. A list should be prepared of foundations which have regis- 
tered as lobbyists. In each case, the nature of the lobbying 
must be investigated carefully. Some of these cases will be 
innocent. Others will be per $e violations of the tax exemption 

2. Other cases will appear in which the literature produced is 
of a political character or has been used politically. 

3. There will be other cases in which though no political litera- 
ture is used, the foundation has engaged in politics. 


4. There is a very difficult area, where the foundation has not 
engaged directly in politics but has produced what might be 
called "politically slanted” material. 



1. List of trustees. 

2. List of officers. 

3. List of administrative officials, 

4. Is there an extraordinary preponderance of ideological pro- 
ponents, or an effective direction by ideological proponents? 

5. Then see if there is a reflection of this preponderance in the 

a. By identity of awards. 

b. By dollar value of awards. 

c. By identity of donees. 

d. By identity of administrators of awards. 

e. In each case (a.b.c.d.) collateral material may be 
needed for the characterization. 

By this means we might show that, when extremists predomi- 
nate in control of a foundation, the result is at least a slant to its 
operation, with political implications— whether sufficient to re- 
sult in exemption loss or not. 

Note: There are some instances in which, although there will be 
no numerical predominance, it can he shown that the non- 
extremists were inactive and that the extremists directed 
the show. 

Note: Where the correlation between control and result can be 
proved and there was a partial use of funds for subversive 
purposes, or an administration or use of funds by a sub- 
versive, a further tie-in may be possible. 

Note: We cannot expect uniformity or stand-pa tishness. We 
shall have to define the term "ideological," but we mean 
it roughly to cover communism, socialism, fascism, and 
other ideologies which tend to change radically our form 
of economy or society. 




i. The delicate area is religion. To even question the right to 
use foundation money for foreign religious missions, etc., is 

In many other instances, the wide use of tax free money 
abroad is subject to question: 

a. On the ground that it is transporting die taxpayer's 
money without his consent. 

b, On the gjound that it has an effect on foreign policy 
independent of and sometimes contrary to the official 
policy of government. In some cases, it is ''meddling/' 

g. The problem here is simply to present factual and statistical 
information and, upon it, to base the question; Are such 
grants justifiable or desirable? 

4 . A mass questionnaire on dm subject by itself might be ad- 



I. Extent to which foundations give money to each other. 

a. Extent to which this results in a shifting or ducking 
of responsibility. 

b. Extent to which this indicates an interlock, 

C. Extent to which this indicates an informal control of 
foundation operations in general, 
d. Extent to which a trend of political or social character 
can be traced to this interlock. 

5, Extent of interlocking trusteeships, 

a. Interlocks within the boards. 

b. Interlocks with the universities. 

c. Certain favored universities. 

d. Obvious exclusions through such interlocks. 

e. Some statistical study of this result, 

g. Extent of interlock in foundation officers and administrative 

a. Same breakdown as above (a.b.c.d.e.) 


b. Probable that most of the mischief takes place at this 

4. Markedly favored individual donees, 

5. Markedly favored projects. 

6. Markedly favored institutional donees. 

7. Tracing ideological patterns? 



1. This subject should be integrated with or partly based on 
Project X. 

2. Favoring of certain universities and institutions. 

3. Interlocks and their part in controlling education and the de- 
velopment of educational theories through association with 
favored colleges and favored professors. 

4. Describe the pattern of control. (It has been suggested that 
there is a sort of inner group and associates who act as a self- 
perpetuating controlling board — not formally, but by mutual 

5. Difficulty of getting allotments for individuals and organiza- 
tions not within the inner group or on its periphery. 

6. Extent to which government funds find their way into the 
same control (National Science Foundation?). 

7. Trace the charge that there was a pattern or plan of Com- 
munist and Socialist infiltration into foundations to affect 
education, etc. 



1. A discussion of the tax uses of foundations is important as a 
background to current and future developments. Abuses come 
into play through business use when foundations are created 
for tax purposes primarily. These deserve mention, at least, 
though they are for the eye of Internal Revenue. 

2. Some analysis might be made of foundation portfolios and 
of the holdings of donors and their families to see whether 
control of enterprises takes place indirectly, 


3. A general study of the financial Import of foundation man- 
agement might also be undertaken. 

# * # 


In the report of the Cox Committee, a list of criticisms of 
foundation operation was given in the form of questions, and 
the report gave answers to some of these questions. We under- 
stand it to be the position of this Committee that the Cox Com- 
mittee had inadequate time to consider these posed questions 
with thoroughness. We propose, therefore, to reconsider these 
questions and attempt to produce more elaborate material upon 
which answers to them can be based, though the Committee may 
not choose to give precise answers, 

The questions asked by the Cox Committee were these: 

1. Have foundation funds been diverted from the purposes es- 
tablished by the founders? 

St. To what extent have foundations been infiltrated by Com- 
munists and Communist sympathizers? 

3. Have foundation funds been channeled into the hands of 
subversive individuals and organizations, and, if so, to what 

4. Have foundations supported or assisted persons, organiza- 
tions, and projects which, if not subversive in the extreme 
sense of that word, tend to weaken or discredit the capitalis- 
tic system as it exists in the United States and to favor Marx- 
ist socialism? 

5. Are trustees of foundations absentee landlords who have 
delegated their duties and responsibilities to paid employees 
of the foundations? 

6. Do foundations tend to be controlled by interlocking direc- 
torates composed primarily of individuals residing in the 
North and Middle-Atlantic States? 

7. Through their power to grant and withhold funds, have 
foundations tended to shift the center of gravity of colleges 
and other institutions to a point outside the institutions 

8. Have foundations favored internationalism? 


9. To what extent are foundations spending American money 
in foreign countries? 

10. Do foundations recognize that they are in the nature of pub- 
lic trusts and are, therefore, accountable to the public, or do 
they clothe their activities in secrecy and resent and repulse 
efforts to learn about them and their activities? 

11. Are foundations being used as a device by which the control 
of great corporations are kept within the family of the foun- 
dation’s founder or creator? 

12. To what extent are foundations being used as a device for 
avoidance and lax evasion? 

Most of the questions are covered in the projects outlined above. 

* * * 


We intend to produce a record at hearings. Whether these hearings 
are to be public or private is the Committee's decision. Some docu- 
mentary evidence will be accumulated and introduced; other evidence 
will come out of the mouths of witnesses under oath. We hope that 
early hearings will not be required. We feel that a great amount of 
preliminary research should be finished before, and in preparation 
for, hearings. Some of this involves independent study by the staff; 
some necessitates conferences with foundation executives; and some 
will come to us in the form of material solicited by mail from the 

# * # 

This report to the Committee is, as we have said, intended to be 
tentative. We reserve the privilege of amplifying or varying it within 
its general import. We fully understand, however, that we are the 
servants of the Committee itself and subject entirely to its direction. 
Moreover, we welcome whatever cooperation or direction the Com- 
mittee members can take the time and trouble to give us. 

Ren£ A. Wormser 
General Counsel 
Arnold T. Koch 
Associate Counsel 
Norman Dodd 
Director of Research 


Accountability, of foundations, 298*300 
Accrediting organizations, 326 
Achelis, Elizabeth, 34 
Adamic, Louis, 17a, 328 
Adams, Arthur S., 367 
Adler, Mortimer, 173,258 
Advertising Council, The, 326 
A.F.L.-C.I.O., 279 
Albert, C. B., 202 

Alfred P. Sloan Fund, see Sloan Founda- 

Amalgamated Clothing Workers of 
America, 31 

American , The (Fast), 171 
American Academy of Political and So- 
cial Sciences, 74 

American Association for the Advance- 
ment of Science, 97, 205 
American Association for the United 
Nations, The, 203, 206 
American Association of Fund-Raising 
Counsel, Inc., 28-29 

American Association of International 
Conciliation, 205 

American Bar Association Journal, 116, 

American Civil Liberties Union, 296 
American Committee for Cultural Free- 
dom, 273 

American Committee for Democracy and 
Intellectual Freedom, 

Committee on Textbooks, 160 
American Council of Learned Societies, 
The, 64, 68, 6g, 79, 187, 196, 205, 

statement filed with Reece Committee, 

American Council on Education, The, 
viii, 64, 69, 76-78, 79, 142, 187, S05, 
823 fn., 366, 367 

Research Policy Committee, 77 
statement filed with Reece Committee, 

supporters, 76 

American Dilemma , An (Myrdal), 114- 
119, 130,217 

American Economic Foundation, 199 
American Education Fellowship (for- 
merly The Progressive Education 
Association), 64, 142, 146 fn„ 153, 
‘55’ *56 

American Foundation for Political Edu- 
cation, The, 204, 326 

American Foundations for Social Welfare 
(Harrison and Andrews), 22 
American Friends Service Committee, 
The, 266-267, 326 

American Heritage Counclt, The, 326 
American Heritage Foundation, 66 
American Heritage Project, 259, 326 
American Historical Association, 205, 

Commission on Social Studies, 146-152, 
156, 158, 186, 216, 298 
American Labor Education Service, Inc., 
34-35, 64, 193-196, 203, 264, 366 
American Legion, 274, 2^7-278, 28g 
American Legion Magazine, 278 
American Library Association, The, 204, 
259* 26 3* 3 a6 

American Peace Society, 206 
American Philosophical Society, The, 68 
American Political Science Association, 
47*58> 83, 114* 181, 182, 196 
American Psychological Association, 233 
American Soldier, The, io^-i to, 286 
American Statistical Association, 104 
"American Way of Business" (pamphlet), 

American Youth Commission, The, 142 

INDEX 401 

Americans for Democratic Action, 296 
Andrews, F, Emerson, ix, x, 30, 51, 57, 
66-67, 220 fn., 289, 290, 297-299 
Andrews, T. Coleman, 356 
Anticapitalism, foundation-supported, 

Anti-Defamation League, 3 1 1, 357 
Aristotle, 151 
Army, U. S., 77, 1 10 

Association for Supervision and Curricu- 
lum Development, The, 216 
Attlee, Clement, 18 
Augustine, 231 

Awards, annual, granting of, 31, 393*394 
Aydelotte, Frank, 201, 202 

Bacon, Francis, 229 
Bachr, Harry, 208 
Baldwin, Roger N., 124 
Banned Books (Haight), 273 
Barker, Joseph 292 
Barth, Alan, 275 
Baruch, Bernard, 188 
Batelle Memorial Institute, 66 
Beard, Charles Austin, 210 
Beaverbrook, Lord, 188 
Beer, Max, 122 

Behavioral Science Fund (Ford), 66, 74, 

"Behavioral sciences,” 83 
Bending the Twig (Rudd), 146 fn., 163 

Benedict, Ruth, 213, 262 
Bentley, Elizabeth, 276 
Berclson, Bernard, 252 
Berle, Adolph A., Jr., 122-123, 280 
Berlin, University of, 123 
Bernal, J. D., 229 

Bibliography on the Communist Prob- 
lem in the United Slates , A , 273- 

Big Business, 3 2, 188 

Bigness, problem of, 51-54 

Bill of Rights, 187 

Bisson, T. A., 213 

Black, Hugo L„ 309-310 

Blaine, Mrs. Anita McCormick, 34 

Bliven, Bruce, 143 

Block, Herb, 275 

B’nai B'rith, 76, 311 

Bollingen Foundation, 199 

Bossard, James H. S., 96, 98 

Boston Post, 251 

Bowles, Chester, 265, 266 

Braden, Spruille, 212 

Brady, Robert A., 188 

Brameld, Theodore, 154 

Brandeis, Louis D., testimony of, 5-6 

Brandon Films, 261 
Briggs, Charles W., 356, 357 
testimony of, 44-45, 253-256, 258, 359 
Brotherhood of Man (film), 261-262 
Browder, Earl, 163, 273 
Brown University, 273 
Bryson, Lyman, 172 
Buchanan, Scott, «8o 
Budenz, Louis, 168, 276 
Building a Science of Society for the 
Schools (Rugg), 160 fn. 

Building America textbook series, 160- 
162, 171, 172 

Building for Peace at Home and Abroad 
(Stewait), 171 
Burdick, Eugene, 280 
Business as a System of Power (Brady), 

Butler, Nicholas Murray, 204 
Butterworth, W. Walter, aox 
Byrnes, James F., 117 

California Senate Un-American Activi- 
ties Committee, 183, 390 

California, University of, 27, 67, 95, 125, 

Carmichael, O. C., 202 

Carnegie, Andrew, vil, 58, 139, 188, 202, 

Carnegie Corporation of New York, viil, 
13, 26, 30, 45, 48, 51, 62, 65. 66, 68, 
74, 76, 79, 105, 106, 110, H2, 120, 
* 34 * * 37 » *$ 8 , 175 * 202- 20 9 » * 10 ' 
21C, 220, 221, 243, 298, 366 
accomplishments of, xiii, 288, 292-293 
American Dilemma, An, produced by, 

anticapitalism book financed by, 188 
Citizens Education Project, 169-171 
control over education, 139, 142, 151, 

Cox Committee investigation of, 328, 
33b 33 2 

Institute of Pacific Relations sup- 
ported by, 196, 33a, 333 
Socialist charter tor education financed 
by, 146-152 

statement filed with Reece Commit- 
tee, 379 

trustees, 152, 210 
Untermyer’s criticism of, 7 
Walsh Commission investigation of, 
5, n 

Camegie Endowment for International 
Peace, 45, 51, 62, 65, 76, 120, 175, 
202-203, S04-208, 209, 210, 211, 
218-220, 232, 262, 265, 270, 33a, 

402 INDEX 

Carnegie Endowment (font.) 
attitude toward Reece Committee In- 
vestigation, 377 
Ford Foundation grant to, 23s 
globalism promoted by, 212 
importance and power of, 30 
Institute of Pacific Relations sup- 
ported by, 196, 332 

statement filed with Reece Committee, 

United Nations propaganda, 214, 215 
Carnegie Foundation for the Advance- 
ment of Teaching, 51, 68, 76, 188 
Carnegie Institute of Technology, 249 
Carnegie Institution of Washington, 51 
Carr, William C., 39-40 
Carroll, Thomas H., 285 
Casey, Kathryn, 342, 348, 356, 380, 381 
Catholic Church, 17, 235 
Catholic University, 365 
Center for Advanced Study in the Be- 
havioral Sciences, 232 
Chafee, Zechariah, *34 
Challenge, The (film), 262 
Chamberlin, William Ilenry, 287 
Charitable trusts, in England, 18-19 
Charity, 16-19 

Chase, Stuart, 110-113, 143, 151, 171, 233 
Chicago Council of American-Soviet 
Friendship, 263 
Chicago Daily News, 251 
Chicago Round Table Broadcasts, 171 
Chicago, University of, 34, 48, 67, 89, 
142, 1O4, 168, 249, 251, 252, 264, 

Citizens Education Project, 169-171 
Civil liberties, 233, 234, 260, 271-272, 273, 

Civil rights, 181, 182, 279, 280 
C/dms of Sociology: A Critique of Text- 
books (Hobbs), 87, 165 
Clark, Evans, 1 12 fn. ( 143, 213, 262 
Clason, C. R., 202 
Clement V, Pope, 17 
Clement XIV, Pope, 17 
Cleveland Council on World Affairs, 219 
Cohen, Felix S., 193 
Cole, C. D. H., 123 

Colegrove, Kenneth, 223, 356, 357, 375 
testimony of, 47-49, 67, 69, 115, u6, 
129-130, 196, 212 

Collectivism, 146-147, 157, 207, 216, 237, 
305, 325 

Collectivism on the Campus (Root), 89 
fn., 165, 168 

Collector of Internal Revenue, 36, 356 
College attendance, statistics on, 246 
Colleges, grants to, recommendation 
concerning, 322-323 

Collins, Seaborn P., 277, 278 
Columbia University, 9, 31, 67, 74, 119, 
120, 141 fn., 142, 145, 156, 159, 
167, 168, 169, 172. 217, 232, 233, 
a37»»49*254.356.357.379 , , 
Commission on Industrial Relations 
(Walsh Commission), 5-14, 19, 29, 

report, 10, 11-13, 20 

Commission on Social Studies, 146-152, 
156, 158, 186, 216, 298 
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, testi- 
mony of, X 

Committee to Frame a World Constitu- 
tion, 34 

Commoyi Cause, 258 

Common Sense and The Fifth Amend- 
ment (Hook), 274-275 
Common, John R., 13 
Commonwealth Fund, The, 63, 68, 202 
Communism, 174-186, 279, 327, 331-333 
Communist Manifesto, 178, 197 
Compton, Wilson, 79 
Conference Board of Associated Re- 
search Councils, 78-79 
Conformity and Civil Liberties (Stouffer), 

Congressional investigations, difficulties 
confronting, 309-310 

Congressional Record, 328 fn., 329 fn., 
336 fn., 352 

Constitution, U. S„ 115, 116-117, 130, 144, 
159, 180, 181, 187, 233. 234, 261, 

Cook, Eugene, 1 16 
Cooperative organizations, 325 
Corey, Lewis, 123 
Corey, Stephen M., 141 fn. 

Cornell University, 167, 168, 169, 249 
Cottrell, Leonard S., Jr., 107, 109 
Council on Foreign Relations, 200, 209, 

globalism promoted by, 212 
Counts, George S. t 123, 145, 153 
Courtis, Stuart A., 97 
Cox, E. E., 328*330, 335, 358 
Cox Committee, v, 328*335 
creation of, vii, 328, 358 
Hearings, 126, 197, 282 fn. 
procedure, 338 
purpose of, 3 
report, 331-334, 398 
work of the, 330 335 
follow-up on, 398-399 
Crusades, 17 

"Culture-lag” theory, 293-294, 304 
Cummington Story, The (film), 260-261 
Currie, Lauchlin, 113 

INDEX 403 

Daily Worker, 2G1, 275 
Dare the School Build a New Social Or* 
der (Counts), 153 

Daughters of the American Revolution 
(D.A.R.), 289 

David, Donald K., 284, 285 
Davis, Elmer, 195 
Davis, Horace B., 124 
Dean, Vera Micheles, 208, 232, 287 
Declaration of Independence, 115, 144, 
180, 2G1 

Defense Department, U. S„ 66, 71 

DeHuszar, George, 344, 345 

Des Moines Tribune, 31 

De Tocqucville, Alexis C., 79 

Deutsch, Albert, 103 

DeVinney, Leland, 66, 109 

DeVoto, Bernard, 357, 358 

Dewey, John, 144-145 

Dewey Society, see John Dewey Society 

Dies Committee, 123 

Dilworth Committee, 160-161, 163, 390 

Disarm (LID publication), 190 

Dobb, Maurice, 122 

Dodd, Norman, 341, 342, 351, 354-356* 
37J-372, 380, 399 

Dollard, Charles, 65, 74, 10G, 110, 112, 
113, 117, 118, 150-151,232, 233 
Douglas, Paul, 143, 363 
Draper, Theodore, 273 
Dudbridge, L. A., 65 
Due Process of Law Denied (film), 260 
Duke Foundation, The, lx, 51 

Earl, Ken, 188-189, 190, 193, 357 
East European Fund, The, G8, 247 
Eastland Committee, 251 
Economics and Action (Mend£s-Francc), 


Edison Foundation Institute, see Thomas 
Alva Edison Foundation Institute 
Education, foundations and, 139*172 
propaganda vs., 32-37 
radicalism in, 139-172 
Education for International Understand • 
ing in American Schools — Sugges- 
tions and Recommendations, 216 
Edward W. Hazcn Foundation, The, 76 
Einstein, Albert, 133 
Eisenhower, Dwight D., 347-349 
Eisler, Hans, 195, 328 
Eisler, Robert, 123 

Ellis L. Phillips Foundation, The, 76 
Empiricism, excess of, 323 
Encyclopedia Americana, The, 167-168 
Encyclopedia Britannica, The, 260 
Encyclopedia Britannica Films, 264 
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, The , 
119-125, 151, 167 

Engels, Friedrich, 197 
Ei-hart Foundation, 199 
Etlingcr, Karl, 342, 344, 345*346, 35* 
Europe and the UJS. (Dean), 208 

Fabianism in Great Britain (McCarran), 
143, 365 

Faceless Informers and Our Schools (Mar- 
tin), 275 

Facts Forum, 352, 3G7 
Fads and Foibles in Modern Sociology 
(Sorokin), 91 fn., 92, 92 fn., 98 fn., 
99 fn., 199, 242 
Fair Deal, 174 

Falk Foundation, see Maurice and Laura 
Falk Foundation 
Farrell, James T., 273 
Fascism, 177, 188, 324 
Fast, Howard, 171 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, 176, 
275-276, 390, S93 
Field, Frederick Vanderbilt, 172 
Fifth Amendment Today , The (Gris- 
wold), 274, 378 

Film Council of America, 262-263 
Fitch, John A., 124 
Fletcher, C. Scott, 263-264 
Flexner, Abraham, 133 
Flick, Friederick, 188 
For This We Fought (Chase), H2 
Forand, Aime J., 330 
Ford, Edsel, xi, 221 
Ford, Henry, vii, xi, 221, 236 
Ford, Henry, II, 238, 244, 281-282, 284 
Ford Foundation, The, vii, ix, xi, 24, 26, 
28, 30, 34, 49, 51-52, 55, G3, 65, 66, 
68, 70, 79, 173, 183, 193, 195. i99» 
203, 221-287, 290, 293, 357, 366, 

annual income, 221 

attitude toward Reece Committee in- 
vestigation, 377 
changes of personnel, 291 
control over education, 141 
Cox Committee investigation of, 331 
cultural-lag theory and, 293-294 
divisions, 247-248 
employees, number of, 49 
establishment, date of, 221 
globalism promoted by, 212 
gTants to other foundations, 232, 268 
grants to social institutions, 295 
history of, 228-247 
internationalism and, 265-270 
jury-tapping project, 89 90, 95, 250-253 
size, 221, 230, 234 

statement filed with Reece Committee* 

404 INDEX 

Ford Foundation (conf.) 
trustees, 221, 222, 228, 238, 239-247, 
250-251, 259, 264-265, 269, 270-271, 
281-284, 287, 287 fn., 292 
Ford Foundation , The, the Men and the 
Millions — An Unauthorized Biog- 
raphy (Macdonald), 49 fn., 153, 
238 fn., 241, 244 fn., 250 fn., 269 fn. 
Ford Fund for Adult Education, The, 76 
Ford Motor Company, xi, 55, 228, 244, 
245, 264 

Ford MotoT Company Fund, The, ix f 51 
Foreign policy, foundations and, 200-220, 

Foreign Policy Association, 200, 204, 205, 
208*209, 219, 232, 287 
globalism promoted by, 212 
statement filed with Reece Committee, 

Form 990A, public access to, 315, 347-348 
Fortune magazine, 14, 24, 131 
Fosdick, Raymond B. ( 230 
Foundation, The, Its Place in American 
Life (Keppel), 19 

Foundation for Foreign Affairs, The, lQg 

abolishment of, arguments for. 305-306 

abuses, prohibited, 319 

accomplishments of, xiil, 27, 306-309 

accountability of, 298-300 

areas In need of investigation, 325^327 

areas of operation, 320-322 

bigness of, 51*54 

birth rate of, x, 301 

bureaucrats of, 48-51, 81, 303 

capital gains, 316 

capital of, ix, 51 

classes of, ix 

"collecting," abuses by, 314 
Communist penetration of, 174-177, 
33 1 "333 

corporate, 54-55 
proposed restrictions on, 317 
Cox Committee investigation of, 328- 

335 „ ... 

creation of, motivation in, x, 301 
defining. 315 

directorates, revolving, proposal for, 318 
duration of, proposed limitations on, 

education and, 139-172 
emphasis on mass research, 131-138 
foreign policy and, 200-220, 265*270 
foreign use of funds, 325 
Form p9oA and, 315, S 47 ‘ 34 8 
globalism promoted by, 206, 211*213 
growth of, x 

improper business uses of, 14 
income accumulation by, 316, 319 

incorporation of, 317 
interlocks among, 57-82, 135, 302, 39$ 
protection against, 322 
Interlocks with government, 211 
intermediaries as joint instrument of, 

leftists supplied to government by, 
i9 6l 99 

leftward slant of, 119-129 
legal procedure against, initiated by 
citizens, 319 
lobbying by, 324, 394 
loss of exemptions, 317 
muckraking influence of, 129-131 
number existing in U. S.. viii-ix, 51 
operating costs, proposed limitations 

on, 313-314 

political activities of, 323-324, 394-395 
power of, 41-56, 254, 302, 303, 307 
concentration of, 57*82, 87, 99, 302, 
504, 322 

public directors proposed for, 318 
recommendations to, 291-300 
reform from within, 313 
responsibility, 28-38, 44, 1C9, 170, 224- 
226, 231, 281-284, 298*299, 301 
in supporting social change, 38*40 
scientism fostered by, 89 90 
social significance of, 16-28 
Socialist penetration of, 177-184 
study of, 3-40 

subversion and, 184-186, 305, 317, 324- 
325 » 327 

survival, problem of, 305-307 
trustees. 43*51, 57-59, 64, 65, 152, 199, 
218, 245, 289-296, 298, 302-303, 
307. 314, 321, 322, 323, 331 
removal of, 318 
selection of, 318-319 
use of, in estate anil business planning, 
x-xii, 319-320, 397 

"venture capital" concept, 29-30, 37, 
169, 299 

waste in selection of projects, 314-315# 

Frankfurt, University of, 122 
Freedom Award Speeches , 275 
Freedom , Education and the Fund 
(Hutchins), 257 
Freedom House, 275 
Freedom to Read (film), 274 
Freegood, Anne G., 101 
Frontiers of Democracy (publication), 156 
Fulbright, J. W., 202 

Fund for Adult Education, 195, 247, 259- 

Fund for Asia, 266 

Fund for the Advancement of Educa* 
lion, 173, 247, 253-259- 283 

INDEX 405 

objectives, 254-255 

Fund for the Republic, 34, 55, 183, 233, 
234, *47» 270-281, 288, 290, 

. 866,378 # 

achievements In propaganda, 272*276 
attitude toward Reece Committee in- 
vestigation, 378 
capital, 271 
purposes, 27 1, 272 

Statement filed with Reece Committee, 

Funds and Foundations (Flexner), 133 
Fusilier, Raymond, 118, 119 

Gaither, H. Rowan, G5, 221, 228, 230*232, 
236, 244, 259 
testimony of, a8, 29 
Garland Fund, The, 174 
Gellhorn, Walter, 31, 379 
General Education Board (Rockefeller), 
68, 76, 144, 160, 164 

statement filed with Reece Committee, 

Gcngerelli, J. A., 27 
George, Ilenry, 34 
Gladieux, Bernard L., 379 
Globalism, promoted by foundations, 
206, 21 1*213, 216 
Goals for America (Chase), ill 
Coering, Hermann, 188 
Goldman, Eric, 280 
Good-bye Christ (Hughes), 329 
Goodwin, Angicr L., 330, 337, 340, 341, 
Gordon, Walter, 202 

Government by Investigation (Barth), 


Government in Business (Chase), in 
Grand Inquest (Taylor), 275 
Grant Foundation, The, 68, 76 
Graves, John Temple, Jr., 143 
Graves, Mortimer, 196, 197, 379 
Great Books Discussion Croups, 259*263 
Great Books Foundation, The, 326 
Great Technology (Rugg), 158 
Greater Philadelphia Council of 
Churches, 229 
Grierson, John, 263 
Griswold, Dean, 274-275, 378 
Group -research projects, 294-295 
Guardians of American Education, 159 fn. 
Guggenheim fellowships, 201 
Guggenheim foundations, ix, 26, 174-175. 
202, 282 fn. 

Cox Committee investigation of, 328 
Gulick, Luther, 172 

Haight, Anne Lyon, 275 
Hale, R„ 202 



Harding College, 172 
Hardman, J. B. 123 
Harper's (magazine), 31, 101, 103, 309, 

Hairiman, Florence J-, ,13 
Harris, Seymour E., 173-174 
Harvard University, 67, 96, 173, 232, 234, 
237, 249, 274, 278, 284, 286, 292, 
37 ** 

Hayek, Frederick A„ 171 
Hays, Brooks, 330 

Hays, Wayne, 330, 340-377, 380-381 
Hazen Foundation, see Edward 
Hazen Foundation 
Headline Books , 209 
Heald, Henry T„ 221-227, 2 ^7 * n - 
Henry VIII, King (England), 17 
Herring, Pendleton, 66, 70, 91, 94, 

183. 367-368, 376, 378, 379 
Hilferding, Rudolf, 233 
Hillman, Sidney, 31 

Hillman Foundation, The, influence of, 

3 1 

Hiss, Alger, 206, 208, 218-219, 332 
Historical Blackout, The (Barnes), 210 
Hitler, Adolf, 125, 135 
Hobbs, A. H., 86-89, 91, 100, ioi, toa, 
105, 111, 113, 114, 125, 165-166, 
35i<356. 359* 375 
Hoetzsch, Otta, 123 
Hoffman, Hallock, 271 fn. 

Hoffman, Paul, 183. 235, 237-239, 263, 
266, 268-272, 275, 279, 283, 285 
Hofstadtcr. Richard, 275 
Hogben. Lancelot, 229 
Hollis, Ernest Victor, 139-140 
Holmes, John Haynes, testimony of, 7-8 
Hook, Sidney, 275 
Hoover, J. Edgar, 181, 182, 183, 251 

Hornheck, S. K., 202 

House Committee on Tax Exempt 
Foundations, see Special Commit- 
tee to Investigate Tax Exempt 

House Committee on Un-American Ac- 
tivities, 1 17, 251, 261 
House I Live In, The (film), 261 
Hovland, Carl I., 107, 109 
Hughes, Frank, 22*23 
Hughes, Langston, 328, 329 
Hulle, B. M., 202 
Human rights, 234, 261 
Humanist Press, 85 

Hutchins, Robert, 34, 141 fn., 164, 234, 
235, 237 - 2 39 * 2 5 2 » 256-257* 2 5 &* 
263, 264, 270, 271-272, 276, 

277, 279, 280, 281, 283, 285, 335, 


406 INDEX 

Hutchins-Luce Commission on Freedom 
of the Press, 22 

Hutchinson, Ralph Cooper, 229*230 

ILO, see International Labor Organiza- 

Individual Freedom and Government 
Restraints (Gellhorn), 31 
Institute of International Education, 205, 

Institute of International Relations, The, 

Institute of Pacific Relations, The, viii, 
45-47, 62, 64, 134, 13 6 ' l 1 Q > 196* 
200, 205, 206, 210-211, 219, 220, 

ago, S° 5 > 33 33**333 
as agent of communism, 45*47 
globalism promoted by, 212 
loss of tax-exempt status, 37, 45 
Institute of Philosophical Research, 258 
Institutions, tax-exempt, social signif- 
icance of, 16-28 

Intercollegiate Socialist Society, see 
League for Industrial Democracy, 

Intercultural Publications, Inc., 267 
Interlocks, among foundations, 57-82, 135 
protection against, 322 
Intermediary organizations, as joint in- 
strument of several foundations, 
61-63, 302 

Internal Revenue, Bureau of, 36, 315 
Internal Revenue Code, 33, 319 
Internal Revenue Service, x, 15, 29, 32, 
33. 36. 45> *78. 301. 319, 3*“- 3*6- 
347. ?4» 

increase in manpower warranted, 315 
International Education Board, 145 
International Institute, Teachers Col- 
lege, Columbia University, 145 
International Labor Organization (ILO), 

International Ladies Garment Workers 
Training Institute, 273 
International Ladies Garment Workers* 
Union, 195, 262 

International Parliamentary Union, 205 
International Social Science Research 
Council, 217 

Ford Foundation and, 265-270 
foundation complex in, 200-204, 304- 
30^, 396 

Inter-University Labor Education Com- 
mittee, 265 

Investigations, Congressional, difficulties 
confronting, 309-310 
IPR, see Institute of Pacific Relations 
Items (publication), 69, 70, 74, 91, 94, no 

Jahoda, Marie, 234 
Jaszy, Oskar, 124 fn. 

{ enner Committee, 261 
esuits, 17-18 

John and Mary R. Markle Foundation, 
The. 68 

John Dewey Society, The, 64, 142, 146 fn. 
John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, 
see Guggenheim foundations 
Johns Hopkins University, 25 
Johnson, Alvin, 120-122, 125 
Johnson, Joseph E., 220 
Jones, Mark M. # 126 

Journal oj the Atomic Scientists, The, 

Julius Rosenwald Fund, 68, 175, 295 
Cox CommitLee investigation of, 328, 
329 . 

Jury-tapping project, 89*90, 95, 250*253 
Justice Department, U. S., 117 

Kallen, Horace M., 124 
Kalven, Harry, Jr., 251 
Kazakevich, Vladimir D., 168 
Kellogg Foundation, 51 
Keppel, Frederick P., 19-20, 48, 119-120, 

Kept Witness, The (Rovere), 275 

Kerr, Clark, 280 

Keynes, Lord John M., 113, 126 

Kinsey, Alfred C., 32, 74, 94, 100-105, 290, 

Kirchwey, Freda, 143 
Kirk, Grayson, 74 
Kirk, Russell, 89 fn. 

Klein, Philip, 124 

Klineberg, Otto, 217 

Knights Templar, 17 

Knowles, Mrs. Mary, 275-276 

Knudsen, William S., 188 

Koch, Arnold T., 341, 346, 347, 349, 353, 

355 . 367 » a 6 **. 380, 399 
Kohlberg, Alfred, 46, 331 
Kontaht mit Amerika (Myrdal), 118 
Kopronyraos, Constantine, 16 
Kruse, William F., 262*263 

Labor unions, 325 
Lafayette College, 229 
Laidler, Harry W., 36, 172, 189, 190, 193, 

Lamont, Corliss, iC8, 213 

Landman, Amos, 276 

Lange, Oscar, 164 

Lao-Tze, 98 

Lardner, John W. # 66 

Laski, Harold J., 122, 149, 186, 213 

Lasswell, Harold D., 52-53, 83-84, 249 

Lattimore, Owen, 213, 328 

Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, 
The, 68 

Lawrence, David, 275, 276 
Lazarsfeld, Paul, 109, 233, 234, 249 
League for Industrial Democracy, The 
(formerly the Intercollegiate So- 
cialist Society), 35*57* 6 4* m» J43» 
purpose, 188 

statement filed with Reece Committee, 


League of Nations, 37, 204 

Le Compte, Karl M., 343, 344, 346*347 

Lenin, Nikolai, 125, 191, 229 

Lerner, Abba P., 164 

Lerner, Max, 124, 209 

Levi, Edward H., 251, 252 

Lewis, Fulton, 274 

‘'Liberalism," 80, 81, 130, 163, 179, 237* 
239* 2 79* 288 

LID, see League for Industrial Democ- 

Life (magazine), 31 
Lilly Endowment, 199 
Lincoln School, The, 145, 146 fn., 157, 
160, 172 

Lindeman, Edward C., 20-22, 23, 172 
Lobbying, by foundations, 324, 394 
London, Taclc, 14^ 

London, University of, 339 
Loncrgan, Lucy, 342, 344, 346, 350, 351, 


Lorwin, Lewis L., 122 
Los Angeles Times , 279 
Lovett, Robert Morss, 123, 143 
Lubln, Isador, 143 
Luce, Henry R., 280 
Lynd, Robert S., 160, 18B 

MacArthur, Douglas, 196 
Macdonald, Dwight, 49, 133, 238, 241, 
243-244* 259* 268-269, 270, 357*358 
Macgowan, Kenneth, 143 
Maltz, Albert, 195, 261 
Manly, Basil M., 10, 11 
Markle Foundation, see John and Mary 
R. Markle Foundation 
Marauelte University, 169 
Marshall, George C„ 106, 109 
Marshall Field Foundation, 174, 175 
Marshall Foundation, see Robert Mar- 
shall Foundation 
Martin, Joseph W. ( 337, 347 
Marx, Karl, 81, 121, 154, 178, 107 
Mask for Privilege, A (McWilliams), 171 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
(MIT), 67 
Mauldin, Bill, io3 

INDEX 407 

Maurice and Laura Falk Foundation, 

63, 68 

McCarran, Sister Margaret Patricia, 143- 
144, 365, 375 

McCarran, Pat, 144, 365, 375 
McCarran Committee, 46, 133, 137 fn., 

Report, 45 fn. 

McCarthy, Joseph R. f 233, 277 
McGhee, G. C., 202 
McGill University, 165 
McNiece, Thomas, 342, 356, 380 
McWilliams, Carey, 171 
Means, Gardiner C., 123 
Meany, George, 279 
Mend£s-France, Pierre, 215 
Menninger, William C., 66 
Menninger Foundation, 66 
Mcusel, Alfred, 124 
Michigan, University of, 168 
Midwest Residential Seminar on World 
Affairs, 203 
Millis, Walter, 272 

MIT, see Massachusetts Institute of 

Moe, Henry Allen, 202, 282 fn. 

Molcy, Raymond, 236, 280-281, 284 
Moore, Harriet L„ 168 
Morris, Robert, 272 

Moscow News (Communist English-lan- 
guage newspaper), 172 
Mosely, Philip E„ 66 
Moulders of the American Mind (Woel- 
fel), 154 

Mudd, Harvey S„ 66 
Mudd Foundation, 66 
Municipal Research, Bureau of (New 
YorkV 12 

Murray, John Courtney, 2B0 
Murrow, Edward R., 273 
Mussolini, Benito, 125 
Myrdal, Alva, 217 

Myrdal, Gunnar, 114-119, 130, 151, 154, 

Myth of the Good and Bad Nations, 
The (Wormscr), 339 fn. 

National Academy of Sciences, The, 64 
National Association of Manufacturers, 

National Association of Secondary 
School Principals, 164 
National Better Business Bureau, 314 
National Citizens Commission for Pub* 
lie Schools, The, 326 

National Council for Social Studies, 164, 

National Council on Parent Education, 

408 INDEX 

National Education Association, 39, 64, 
1 45# 146 fn., 155, 160, 164, 
165, 366 

statement filed with Reece Committee, 

United Nations promoted by, 816*217 
National Film Board (Canada), 263 
National Planning Board, 72, 111, 186, 

National Research Council, 32, 64, 68, 
79, 100 fn* 

National Resources Committee, The, 187 
National Review , 89 fn., 203, 274, 287 
National Science Foundation, 60, 64, 65, 

Navy, U. S., 77 

NEA, see National Education Assoda* 

New Deal, to, 38, 81, 111, 113, 150, 151, 

New Deal, A (Chase), ill 
New Jersey State Teachers College, 207, 

New Leader, The, 274 
New Masses, The, 273 
New Republic, 120 

New School for Social Research, 120, 125, 

New York Daily News, vii 
New York Herald Tribune, v, xli, 208, 
269 fn., 275 fn., 277, 280, 290, 355, 

New fork Journal- American, The , 276 
New York Times, The , v, 31, 125, 183, 
208, 266, 266 fn., 278, 289, 290, 
555» 366* 380 

New York University, 154, 172, 221, 234, 
*75* *89. 339 

New York World Telegram, 141 fn. 
New Yorker magazine, 49 fn., 357 
Newsweek, 236 fn, 

Niebuhr, Reinhold, 280 
Nobel prize, 31 

North Carolina, University of, 67, 249 
Northwestern University, 47, 356, 357 

O’Donnell, John, vii 

Of Human Rights (film), 261 

Office of War Information, 195 

Oppenheimer, Robert, 273 

Order and History (Voegelin), 199 

Organization Man, The (Whyte), 24, 131 

Orozco, Jos£ C., 125 

Osborn, Frederick, 105, 106*107, l0 9 

O'Toole, Donald L., 330 

Ottoman Empire, 18 

Outlook, The (magazine), 149 

Owen, Robert, 178 

Packer, Herbert, 276 

Pares, Sir Bernard, 167 

Parti Socialisle Su&dots, Le (Fusilier), 118 

Partisan Review, 108 fn. 

Patton, James G., 172 
Pavlov, Ivan P., 114 
Payne Fund, The, 76 
Peffer, Nathaniel, 213 
Pelagian heresy, 231 

Pennsylvania, University of, 47 fn., 86- 

87*96, 165* *68, 356 

Perkins, J. A., 66 

Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace 
(Barnes), 210 

Pew Memorial Foundation, 51, 199 
Pfost, Gracie, 337, 341, 359, 361, 364, 381 
Phelps Stokes Fund, 175 
Philanthropic Foundations (Andrews), 
ix, x, 30. 51, 57, 66, 220 fn„ 297 
'ThiIanthTOpoids, ,, 49-50 
Philbrick, Herbert, 275 
Phillips Foundation, see Ellis L. Phillips 

Pioneers Program (Johnson), 121 fn. 
Porter, Paul R., 190, 191*192 
Potter, William I., 116 
Power, of foundations, 41*56 
concentration of, 57-82 
Prejudice and the Press (Hughes), 22 
Price, Don K., 66 

Progressive Education (publication), 156 
Progressive Education Association, see 
American Education Fellowship 
Progressive Education Magazine, The, 

Propaganda, vs. education, 32*37 
Proper Study of Mankind, The (Chase), 

Pseudo-Conservative Revolt, The (Hof* 
stadter), 275 

Public Accountability of Foundations 
and Charitable Trusts (Taylor), 

Public Administration Clearing House, 
The, 326 

Public Affairs Committee, 172, 195 
Public Affairs Pamphlets, 171, 172 
Pusey, Nathan M., 278*279 
Pyle, Ernie, 108 

Queens College, 47 
Quigley, Hugh, 124 

Rabl, Isador I., 280 
Radicalism, in education, 139-172 
Rand Corporation, The, 65-66, 233, 234, 

Rayburn, Sam, 337, 341 
Rebel Song Book, 195 

INDEX 409 

Redfield, Robert, 280 
Reece, Brazllla Carroll, 146 fn., 288, 289, 

as chairman of Special Committee to 
Investigate Tax Exempt Founda- 
tions, v, vii, 339-381 

as Cox Committee member, 330, 331, 

military decorations, 374 fn. 
preface to book, v-vl 

Reece Committee, see Special Committee 
to Investigate Tax Exempt Foun- 
da tions 

Reference works, sponsored by founda- 
tions, 167-1C9 
Reformation, 17, 18, 231 
Reid, Ogden M., xii 
Reid Foundation, The, xii 
Religious activities, determination of, $7- 

Religious organizations, 16-18, 325 
Research, mass, emphasis of foundations 
on, 131-138, 314 

Research Corporation, The, 292, 293 
Research on Freedom: Report of Dia • 
leclical Discoveries and Construc- 
tions, 258 

Revolt (publication), 190, 191-192, 193 
Rhodes, Cecil, 202 

Rhodes Scholarship Fund (Great Brit- 
ain), 201-202, 212 
globalism promoted by, 212 
Rhodes Trust , The, 1903-1953 (Ayde- 
Iotte), 201 

Rich Land, Poor Land (Chase), 171 
Richardson Foundation, The, 199 
Richter, Curt, 25 
Rippey, J. Fred, 48 
Road to Serfdom , The (Hayek), 171 
Robert Marshall Foundation, 175 
Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, 33-34 
Rockefeller, John D„ vii, 58, 139, 144, 

Rockefeller, John D., Jr., 8-10, 11, 13, 29 
Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The, ix, 51, 

Rockefeller Foundation, The, vlli, 26, 29, 
30. 35 « 5 1 ' 56, 63, 66, 76, 79, 120, 
*34. 157* ^7, l6 9* S02 » 20 3» 

209, 210, 221, 230, 243, 366 
accomplishments of, xiii, 288, 292-293 
administrative structure reorganized, 


attitude toward Rcccc Committee in- 
vestigation, 308-^09 

control over education, 139, 142, 151, 

Cox Committee investigation of, 328, 
33i* 33« 

foreign projects, 268, 269 
globalism advocated by, 206, 212 
Institute of Pacific Relations supported 
by, 45*47, 62, 196, 210, 290, 332, 

Kinsey studies supported by, 100, 290 
National Research Council's Commit- 
tee for research in problems of 
sex supported by, 32, 100 fn. 
policies, 289, 290 
Social Sciences Division, 47 fn. 
statement filed with Reece Commit- 
tee, 379 

Taiping Rebellion study, 136-137 
textbooks financed by, 160, 163-165 
Untermycr's criticism of, 7 
Walsh Commission investigation of, 5, 
11, 12 

Roosevelt, Franklin D., 210 
Root, E. Merrill, 89 fn., 165, 168 
Rosenberg, Julius and Ethel, 251 
Rosenwald Fund, see Julius Rosenwald 

Rovere, Richard H., 275 
Rowe, David N., 45-46, 61 , 62-63, 73» 7®» 
93, 127, 135-138, 175. 3>4> 356/ 357 
Rudd, Augustin C., 146 fn., 1G5 fn. 
Rugg, Harold, 156, 157-160 
Ruml, Beardsley, 19 
Rusk, Dean, 29, 58, 202, 289, 290, 309 
Russell, John M., 109 
Russell Sage Foundation, The, ix, 22, 
63, 68, 112, 120, 175, 217, *21, 233, 
289 fn., 390 

Ford Foundation grant to, 232 
recommendations of, 15, 29 
Untermyer's criticism of, 7 
Russky Golos, 168 
Rutgers University, 168 

Sacco, Nicola, 163 

Sage Foundation, see Russell Sage Foun- 

Salt, Waldo, 260 

San Francisco Board of Education, 157 
Sanford, Fillmore, 233 
Santa Anita Foundation, 66 
Sargent, Aaron, 143-145, *49» 160-161, 
357* 358-360, 364*36 6, 368, 375 
Sauer, Carl O., 95-96, 125 
Schalkenbach Foundation, see Robert 
Schalkenbach Foundation 
Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr., 108-109 
Schultz, Henry Edward, 357 
Schunnan, Jacob G., 12 
Science and Society (magazine), 154, 

"Science as Morality*' (pamphlet), 85 

410 INDEX 

Scientism, foundation -fostered, 89-90, 304 
Scopes trial, 163 

Scripps Foundation for Research in Pop* 
illation Problems, The, 88 
Senate Committee on Interstate and For- 
eign Commerce, 

subcommittee's investigation of Tex- 
tron Corp. operations, 14 
Senate Internal Security Committee, 143, 

Sessions, John A., *73-274 
Sibley, Ethridge, 133 
Simpson, George, 85-86 
Simpson, Richard M., 330 
Sinclair, Upton, 143 
Sloan Foundation, 76, 79 
management reorganized, 172 
projects, 171-172 
purpose, 171 
trustees, 172 

Smal-Stocki, Roman, 169 
Smith, Howard W., 329 
Social Chaos and the Public Mind 
(Rugg), 158 

“Social engineers/' 90-100, 106, 304 
Soria/ Frontier, The (publication), 156 
Social Problems and Scientism (Hobbs), 
89 fn., 91, 101 

Social-science activities, interlock in 
financing of, 63-67 
Social Science Foundation, The, 203 
Social Science Research Council, The, 
viii, 60, 64, 66, 67-76, 77-79* 
89 * 9 1 * 94* 96 * II0 » i*9* I 2 5» 
*33' »43* Mb, 160, 181, 182, 187, 
199, 217, 232, 243, 250, 290, 322, 
Sbb, 367, 376. 378 

American Soldier, The (book), 105-110 

management, 71 

power of, 63, 68, 72 

purposes, 95 

supporters, 68 

Social sciences, politics in the, 83-86 
Socialism, 143, 145, 146 fn., 150, 160. 
162, 171, 177-184, 188-195, 198, 
199, *o8, *09, 305, 34Q 
Sombart, Werner, 122 
Somervell, Brehon, 106 
Songs Useful for Workers ' Groups, 195 
Sorokin, Pitirira A., 91 fn., 92, 92 fn„ 
„ -93. 96. 97. 99* 199. *4« 

Soule, George, 124 

Southern California, University of, 168 
Southern Regional Council, 276 
Soviet Hussia (pro-Cora munis t publica- 
tion), 168 

Special Committee to Investigate Tax 
Exempt Foundations, 328-383 
allegations against, 381-383 

appropriation for, 343*345 
concluding observations, 305-312 

appointment of, 341 
removed and restored to payroll, 

creation of, vii, 335-337 
"Dodd Report," 354-356, 371-372 
emphasis of, on need for further 
study, 5, 289, 305, 307-309, 311, 

findings, 301-305 
Hays' conduct, 347-377 

preparation for, 338-339, 399 
results due to, xv 
limitations of, xiil, xlv, 343 
mandate to, 337-338 
members, 337, 339-341 
methods, 399 

obstacles faced by, v, vii, 303, 308, 309* 

3‘i* 333* 338* 343-378* 38 i-3 8 3 
purpose of, 3, 337 

recommendations and suggestions, 72, 
$89* 3»3-3*7 
report, 380-381 
major, 380-381 
minor, 381 

report of Counsel to, 311*312, 342, 384* 



appointment of, 341-342 
released, 380 

statements by foundations, 377-380 
witnesses. 356-366 
Speicr, Hans, 66, 232, 233, 234 
Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, see 
Laura Spelman Rockefeller Me- 

Stalin, Joseph, 32, 125, 180 
Stalin prize, 31 

Standard Oil of New Jersey, 111 
Stanford University, 142, 249, 276 
Starr, Mark, 172, 195 

State Department, U. S., 30, 47, 77, 201, 
202, 204, 209, 214, 217, 2G8 
States' Rights, 234, 317 
Stephan, Frederick F., 66 
Stern, Bernhard J. t 124 
Stettinius, Edward, 188 
Stewart, Maxwell, 171, 172 
Stouffer, Samuel A., 107, 109, 234, 249, 
275, 285-286 

Strong, Anna Louise, 213 
Studebaker Corporation, 264 
Subversion, foundations and, 184-186, 
305*317* 3M*325* 327. 333 
Sugannan, Norman, 37 fn., 356 357 
Supreme Court, see U. S. Supreme Cour; 

INDEX 411 

Swarthmore College, 168 
Syracuse University, 168 

Taft, Philip, 273 

Taiping Rebellion project, 137, 314 
Taylor, Eleanor, 298 
Taylor, Telford, 275 
Tead, Ordway, 172 

Temporary National Economic Com- 
mittee (TNEC), 10, 339 
Textbooks, collectivist, 156-167 
Textron Corporation, investigation of, 

Thomas, Norman, 159, 189 
Thomas Alva Edison Foundation Insti- 
tute, 293 

TNEC, see Temporary National Eco- 
nomic Committee 

To Insure the End of Our Hysteria 
(Hoffman), 275 
Totalitarianism, 94, 154 
"Toward Nationalization of Industry," 

Trotsky, Leon, 177, 19 l 
T ruman, Harry S., 195, 251, 267 
Trustees, foundation, 43-51, 57-59, 64, 
65, 152, 199, 218, 245, 289-296, 298, 
3 o 2 - 3 <> 3 ' 3 ° 7 ' 3 Mr 3 21 > 322, 323, 

removal of, 318 
selection of, 318-319 
Trusts, charitable, in England, 18-19 
20th Century Capitalist Revolution, The 
(Berle), 123 

Twentieth Century Fund, The, 68, 74, 
111, 112, 112 £n., 213, 262 
loss of tax-exempt status, 37 

Undermining Our Republic , 159 fn. 
Uyxemployed, The (LID publication), 

UNESCO, see United Nations Educa- 
tional, Scientific, and Cultural 
Unions, labor, 325 
United Automobile Workers, 261 
United Nations, 30, 119, 164, 200, 202, 
203, 213, 218, 219, 241, 260, 261, 

propaganda for, 214-216, 305 
United Nations Association, 200 
globalism promoted by, 212 
United Nations Educational, Scientific, 
and Cultural Organization, 195, 
215, 217, 263 

United Productions of America, 261 
United States Advisory Commission on 
Educational Exchange, 195 
U. S. Chamber of Commerce, 203 

U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 36 
U. S. Information Service, 274 
U. S. News World Report, 117, 309 
U. S. Steel Corporation, 6 
U. S. Supreme Court, 52, 116*117, >54 
Universities, grants to, recommendation 
concerning, 322-323 
See also names of universities 
Untermyer, Samuel, 6-7 
Up Front (Mauldin), 108 
USSR (textbook), 108-169 

Vanzetti, Bartolomeo, 163 
Vassar College, 208 

"Venture capital" theory, 29, 30, 37, 169, 

Vincent, John Carter, 204 
Voegelin, Eric, 199 
Volker Fund, igg 
Von Mises, Ludwig, 145 

Wall Street Journal, 237, 253, 282 
Walsh, Frank P„ 6, g, 23 
Walsh, Warren S„ 168 
Walsh Commission, see Commission on 
Industrial Relations 
War and Peace Studies, The, 209 
War Department, U. S., no, 213, 286 
Warning Against Peace Optimism (Myr- 
dal), 1 18 

Warren, Robert Tenn, 31 
Washington Post-Times Herald, v, 275, 
355 » 

Washington, University of, 168 

Watkins, Arthur V., 135, 136 

Watkins, Myron W., 129-124 

Wealth and Culture (Lindeman), 20 

Webbink, Paul, 69 

Welch, Joseph, 233 

Weltfish, Gene, 213, 262 

Werih, Alexander, 213 

White, Harry Dexter, 113, 183 

Whitney Foundation, see William C. 

Whitney Foundation 
Who "Collaborated” with Russia (Wil- 
len), 275 
Whyte, L. L., 25 

Whyte, William H., Jr., 24-27, 131 
Willem Paul, 275 

William C. Whitney Foundation, 175 
Ford Foundation grant to, 232 
Williams, C. Dickerman, 274 
Williams, Clyde, 66 
Willils, Joseph H., 47 fn., 379 
Willkie, Wendell, ai2 
Wilson, Woodrow, 210 
Wilson Foundation, see Woodrow Wil- 
son Foundation 

412 INDEX 

Wisconsin, University of, 67 
With These Hands (film), 26# 

Witlmer, Felix, 207, 208, 213 
Woelfel, Norman, 154-155 
Wolcott, Jesse, 337, 340, 361*364, 371, 

Woodrow Wilson Foundation, 206 
Woodward, Robert Burns, 292, 293 
World Affairs Council (San Francisco), 

World Calendar Association, 34 
World of the Great Powers (Lerner), 

World Peace Federation, 206 
loss of tax-exempt status, 37 
Wormser, Ren£ A., vi 
appointment as Reece Committee 
counsel, 341 

Hays' misstatements concerning recom- 

mendations of, regarding commit- 
tee procedure, 352*354 
removed and reinstated oil Reece 
Committee payroll, 346-347 
Report of counsel to the Committee on 
proposed objectives and methods 
of investigation, 311*312, 342, 384- 

Wright, 9 E)avid McCord, 165 

Yale Executive Committee on Interna- 
tional Relations, 46 

Yale University, 52, 67, 137, 168, 249, 
356, 357 

Young, Donald, 69, log, no, 112, ng, 

Zimmerman, Carle C,, 96 


By Rene A. Wormser 

This is a searching analysis of some of America’s most powerful tax-exempt 
foundations, their actions as opposed to their stated purpose’s, the 
interlocking groups of men who run them, their influence on the country at 

The author, as counsel to the Reece Committee which investigated 
foundations for the last Republican Congress, gained a unique insight into the 
inner workings of the various Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford-created giants. 
He also witnessed the intense and powerful opposition to any investigation of 
these multi-billion-dollar public trusts. The Reece investigation was virtually 
hamstrung from the start to its early demise- which was aided and abetted by 
leading newspaper of the country. 

“It is difficult for the public to understand, ’’writes Mr. Wormser, ’’that some 
of the great foundations which have done so much for us in some fields have 
acted tragically against the public interest in others, but the facts are there for 
the unprejudiced to recognize. 

“The power of the individual foundation giant is enormous. When there is 
likemindedness among a group of these giants, which apparently is due to the 
existence of a closely knit group of professional administrators in the social 
science field, the power is magnified hugely. When such foundations do 
good, they justify the tax-exempt status which the people grant them. When 
they do harm, it can be immense harm - there is virtually no counterforce to 
oppose them.” 


Rene A. Wormser is a California by birth and a New Yorker by education 
and training. Estate planning is one of the fields in which he has specialized 
during his thirty-eight years of law pratice. He is the senior member of the 
New York law firm of Myles, Wormser & Koch. He was for years the 
coordinator of a coutse in estate planning at New Yoyk University Institue on 
Federal Taxation. He is currently chairmen of the Advanced Estate Planning 
courses of The Practicing Law Institue. He has lectured frequently to bar 
associations and other professional and lay groups on estate planning and is 
recognized as one of the foremost authorities on the subject. He is the author 
of three books on this subject: Your Will - and What to Do About It (Simon 
and Schuster). The Theroy and Practice of Estate Planning (Callaghan & 

Co.) and Personal Estate Planning in a Changing World (Simon and 
Schuster). He is also the author of a book on International law, Collection of 
International War Damage Claims, Published by Alexander Publishing 
Company, and of The Law - “The Story of Lawmakers, and the Law We 
Have Lived By, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day,” published by 
Simon and Schuster, and a book on foreign policy. The Myth of the Good and 
Bad nations, published by Henery Regnery. 

ISBN 0-925591-28-9 

ISBN 9780945001096 

9 780945 001096